Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased to see H.R. 6111, the Tax Extender Act before us today. This legislation includes some very important provisions that extend retroactively several expired tax benefits that have been instrumental to keeping our economy growing and helping to provide tax equity to certain members of our society. Many of my colleagues on the Finance Committee have joined me in supporting Chairman Grassley's tireless efforts this year to extend these provisions since even before they expired on December 31 of last year. Unfortunately, our several attempts to do so were thwarted by difficult political circumstances that required that the extender package be deferred until now. It is amazing to me, and undoubtedly very puzzling to Utahns and Americans across the country, that a set of provisions that enjoys nearly universal support in the Senate and in the House of Representatives should be so difficult to pass. However, I am very glad to see that we have finally been able to push the extension of these important tax benefits across the finish line. First and foremost on the list of expired tax provisions that are extended in this bill is the credit for increasing research activities. The so-called research credit has been instrumental in this country in not only providing incentives for conducting an increasing amount of R&D among American companies, but also in keeping that research activity in this country in an environment where incentives to move research offshore are proliferating. Because so many of our trading partners are now offering generous tax and other incentives in an attempt to lure away U.S.-conducted research, extending the research credit is of paramount importance just so we can keep ahead of the competition. Some may question the value of a retroactive extension of the research credit, particularly when it has been expired for nearly a year. After all, it is difficult to argue that a retroactively provided incentive can have any real incentive effect, since the activity it is designed to induce has already taken place. I am very happy that my colleagues have recognized there is another important factor at work here. Practically all of my colleagues agree with me that the research credit would be more effective if it were made permanent. Senator Baucus and I and others of our colleagues have long worked and argued for making the credit permanent. Indeed, in 2001 the Senate passed a permanent research credit, but it was unfortunately dropped in conference with the House. However, because we have almost always extended the research credit seamlessly, it has become a sort of de facto permanent credit. And while a de facto permanent research credit is not as good as a de jure permanent research credit, there are certain benefits that we get from having even an expiring credit always available. I believe that because the credit has been retroactively extended every year, except for one, it is more effective in inducing research activities. I also believe that businesses in Utah and all over America have come to depend on the research credit being extended each year without a gap. Therefore, I believe that it is important to once again retroactively extend the credit to keep the faith that we have allowed to be built up around this tax benefit. Therefore, I am very pleased to see that the credit has once again been extended, retroactive to its expiration date last year. The legislation before us also includes the extension of some other important expired tax provisions. One important provision included in this bill is the retroactive extension of the deduction for school teachers for classroom expenses that they incur. As a major proponent of this legislation for many years, I was extremely pleased to see this provision included in the final bill. Our public school teachers are some of the unheralded heroes of our society. School teachers labor in often difficult and even dangerous circumstances. A historic turnover is taking place in the teaching profession. Unfortunately, these professionals receive an unfair tax treatment under our tax law. Specifically, teachers find themselves greatly disadvantaged by the lack of deductibility of professional development expenses and of the out-of-pocket costs of classroom materials that practically all teachers find themselves supplying. Furthermore, almost all teachers find themselves providing basic classroom materials for their students. Because of tight education budgets, most schools do not provide 100 percent of the material teachers need to adequately present their lessons. As a result, dedicated teachers incur personal expenses for copies, art supplies, books, puzzles and games, paper, pencils, and countless other needs. If not for the willingness of teachers to purchase these supplies themselves, many students would simply go without needed materials. I am pleased to see that this bill includes an extension of a teacher's tax credit which will help teachers, in some small way, to cope with these challenges and inequities. I believe much more must be done. That is why, earlier this year, I introduced the Tax Equity for School Teachers Act of 2006, S. 4027. S. 4027 will not only expand the tax credit teachers can take for school supplies, but also provide them a tax credit which will defer some of the increasing cost of training. I am hopeful we will be able to act on legislation similar to S. 4027 next Congress, but I am very pleased to see this basic tax credit for teachers extended once again this Congress. I thank the Senate for the opportunity to address this issue today, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I also applaud the leadership for including a retroactive extension of the provision offering a 15-year cost recovery period for certain leasehold and restaurant improvements. Failure to do so would mean an effective tax increase on many thousands of small businesses. Likewise, I am pleased to see that this bill has the foresight to include an extension of some energy tax provisions that have not yet expired. Some of these, including the credit for electricity produced from geothermal energy sources, are very important to my home State of Utah. It is refreshing to see that we are being a little more proactive and extending provisions before they actually expire. This represents a much more responsible public policy approach than waiting to act until the provisions have already expired. I would now like to highlight some of the health care provisions that are included in this legislation. First, I have been a strong proponent of ensuring that patients continue to receive access to quality health care by addressing the scheduled reduction in the Medicare physician reimbursement for 2007. This legislation prevents physician payment cuts in 2007 by freezing payments for physician services, and, as a result, doctors will receive a 0 percent update next year instead of a 5 percent reduction. The bill also provides a 1.5 percent bonus- incentive payment to doctors who report on quality measures in 2007. Finally, the provision provides a fund to promote physician payment stability and quality initiatives in 2008. I also am a proud advocate for providing Medicare patients continued access to needed therapy. More specifically, this legislation provides a 1-year extension of the exceptions process established in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 to allow Medicare beneficiaries to apply for additional physical, occupational and speech language therapy services if their treatment is expected to exceed the annual cap on therapy services. I am pleased that this provision was included in the legislation we are considering today. In 2003, I introduced legislation that was included in the Medicare Modernizations Act of 2003 to change the formula for Medicare reimbursement to physicians, since the previous formula penalized those practicing in rural States like Utah. The bill extends the new formula through 2007, which will continue to raise payments in certain rural areas. In addition, I fought to extend the availability of the Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly, PACE, program, which is of interest to those providing long-term, acute care for frail elderly in rural areas, including Grand County in Utah. The legislation before the Senate would ensure that funds for the rural PACE grants are available through 2010. Another important component of this bill is the payment for administration of Medicare Part D vaccines. The legislation specifies that during 2007, the administrative costs for a vaccine covered by Medicare Part D are to be paid under Medicare Part B. However, beginning in 2008, the Medicare Part D coverage will include the administrative costs for vaccines covered under Medicare Part D. Several months ago, I brought this matter to the attention of the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and I am pleased that this issue will be addressed through this bill. Also, the legislation includes a feasibility study on how to create a national database to collect data on elder abuse. Let me make it clear that I am extremely disappointed that the Elder Justice Act was not approved for the second Congress in a row. This legislation was passed unanimously by the Senate Finance Committee in both the 108th Congress and the 109th Congress. I want to let my colleagues know that I will continue to fight for passage of this legislation during the 110th Congress and it is my hope that my House colleagues will be more willing to work with me next year in passing this bill. We expect more than 78 million baby boomers to retire over the next three decades and, in my opinion, we owe it to our seniors to be more informed about elder abuse. Passing the Elder Justice Act is the first step toward accomplishing that goal. During my tenure in the Senate, I have repeatedly voted in favor of free trade. Most economists agree that free trade is not only in the United States best interest but in the interest of developing nations throughout the world. One of the most efficient ways that we can lift millions out of poverty is through free trade. However, since the end of the Second World War, the United States has, on a number of occasions, accepted nonreciprocal trade concessions in order to further important Cold War and post-Cold War foreign policy objectives. Examples include offering Japan and Europe nonreciprocal access to American markets during the 1950s and 1960s in order to strengthen the economies of our allies and prevent the spread of Communism. Other examples of this type of initiative include the Generalized System of Preferences, the African Growth and Opportunity Act and the Andean Trade Preferences Extension Act. In the past, we have afforded these unilateral trade preferences because of the strength of American exports. But times have changed. Our nation has not enjoyed a trade surplus since 1975 and last year's deficit widened to a record $726 billion, increasing to 5.8 percent of the gross domestic product from 5.3 percent in 2004 and 4.5 percent in 2003. This is not say that I do not support the renewal of the Generalized System of Preferences, the African Growth and Opportunity Act and the Andean Trade Preferences Extension Acts. I do support their renewal. However, I share the concerns of the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, that blanket renewals are not in our Nation's best interest, especially when countries with rapidly expanding economies, such as India and Brazil, can avail themselves of the unilateral preferences granted in the Generalized System of Preferences. I am also very concerned that the Andean Trade Preferences Extension Act will be renewed for nations like Ecuador, whose government has nationalized American-owned corporations without paying just compensation. Therefore, I look forward to working with Senator Grassley and the in-coming chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, in order to better tailor our preference systems so that we help developing nations lift their populations out of poverty and craft a comprehensive strategy that will return American exports to the surplus column. Another issue included in this trade portion of this bill is the granting of Permanent Normal Trade Relations, PNTR, for Vietnam. For years, I have been very concerned regarding the religious freedom of the Vietnamese people. That was one of the major reason why in 2001, I voted against the Vietnam Bilateral Trade Agreement. However, I have been encouraged by a series of reforms that have occurred that culminated in the agreement on religious freedom between our two countries, in which Hanoi agreed to take steps that were designed to improve conditions for people of faith, particularly in the Central Highlands, which includes the Montagnards. Therefore, I will support PNTR for Vietnam but I pledge eternal vigilance to ensure that the Vietnamese Government lives up to its commitments and ensure the basic rights of its people. As to the economic benefits of granting PNTR for Vietnam, it is true that Vietnam currently enjoys a $5.3 billion trade deficit over the United States. However, it should be noted that Vietnam has been an important customer of high-value goods, especially aircraft. This includes being a launch customer for what promises to be one of the United States premiere export products of this century the 787 Dreamliner. The adoption of the Vietnam PNTR will not assist in remedying the trade deficit between our two countries. The reason being, that unlike some free trade agreements that the United States has entered into, the United States does not grant Vietnam unilateral preferential access to United States markets. However, under the agreement Vietnamese tariffs on many U.S. agricultural products will be reduced from 27 percent to 15 percent or less. The agreement also calls for the elimination of 96 percent of the tariffs on scientific equipment. Scientific equipment is a significant export for my home State of Utah. Therefore, I will support the Vietnam PNTR as a means for American companies to have greater access to this burgeoning market and as a means of closing the trade deficit with this Nation. Finally, I support the Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement Act. This is of course a matter which has been brought to our attention, in part, through the hard work of my friend Senator DeWine. I understand that with the enactment of this legislation tens of thousands of Haitians will find employment in their country. This is something that we must do. Haiti is the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere, we must do all that we can to assist this nation, which is only 600 miles from our border, lift the heavy hand of poverty and begin to provide for a better life for its people. I would like to thank all of those involved in getting this important piece of legislation through both Congressional bodies and saving American taxpayers from an enormous tax increase next year.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as this session draws to a close, I would be remiss if I did not take a moment, or perhaps more than a moment, to share with my colleagues my deep appreciation to a staffer who has recently left the Senate and Federal service. I speak of Bruce Artim. Bruce came to us over a decade ago, first as a legislative fellow, then moving through the ranks of the Senate as a detailee, and finally as the top Judiciary Committee staffer. What a long, strange trip it has been. Bruce's work has spanned stem cells to trade treaties to the criminal code. In fact, I can't think of an issue that Bruce has not worked on-- nuclear waste with the Department of Homeland Security to international AIDS with Bono--although it is an open secret Bruce much prefers the Stones--to juvenile diabetes with Mary Tyler Moore. At times, Bruce has provided legislative drafting services to the Utah legislature and medical advice to Members of Congress. He has plotted strategy to enact the Child Health Insurance Program, flipped charts at Labor Committee hearings, and written floor statements so long the podium sagged. Bruce is equally competent and equally happy explaining the complexities of molecular biology or the intricacies of intelligence law. His range of expertise spans the subchapters of food and drug law to the nuances of trade treaties. He is a man who really knows his Zantac. He works equally well inside the bureaucracy, outside the bureaucracy, and around the bureaucracy. He has advised me on the esoterics of the totipotent oocyte, the best escape route from the Hart in times of emergency, and which dishes were best at the Dirksen buffet. Never was there a better proofreader of international law. I have valued his work, both as a trusted aide in whom I have total and absolute confidence, but also as a family member, who has been with me through thick and thin. So it is with great sadness that I rise to express my heartfelt thanks, appreciation and best wishes to Bruce and his family as he retires from 25 years of Federal service and assumes a wonderful opportunity in the private sector. Bruce has exemplified the best of Capitol Hill staffers. He is known and loved by all--from the cafeteria workers to the chairmen of the major committees. All recognize what we have come to appreciate about Bruce--his affable manner, his keen intellect, quick wit, and his readiness to help any and all. Bruce is truly one of a kind. His departure from my office has certainly left a void that will be very difficult to fill. Bruce, his loving wife, Brenda, and his precious 12-year-old son Jon, have been a part of the extended Hatch family for many years. In fact, Jon has had such a frequent presence in our office that I think we have even put him to work more than once. Another frequent guest to our office was Bruce's wonderful mother Irma, who turned 80 years old this May. Bruce father's Ed, a World War II combat veteran, passed away many years ago and I will always regret that I never had the chance to meet him. I remember so well the time Bruce told me one of the most important things that his father taught him was to always try to make time to give career counseling and opportunities to the talented individuals you meet at work, particularly the young people. I agree with this advice wholeheartedly because as I look at my 30- year career in the Senate, one of the aspects I most cherish is the successes that so many of my friends and constituents in Utah and former staffers and other associates have accomplished in part because of the help that our office has provided. Bruce is one of the brightest, hardworking, and loyal staffers who have ever served on my staff. And there is one unique and endearing quality about him--he always put his family first. His love for his family is inspiring. Even though he worked endless hours for me, he always made it a priority to attend his son's baseball games and swimming meets. After completing his undergraduate education, Bruce started his career in government as a member of the Volunteers in Service to America--as a VISTA Volunteer. Stationed in Columbus, IN, Bruce helped organize six local housing authorities and helped train them to operate housing rehabilitation and community development programs to benefit low-income families. After returning to school and graduating from law school in 1983, Bruce joined the Office of Management and Budget where he was assigned to review the regulatory and legislative programs of the Food and Drug Administration. In 1986, Bruce moved to the Department of Health and Human Services as the executive assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Health, Dr. Robert Windom. In 1989, Bruce became the assistant director for policy at the National AIDS Program Office of the U.S. Public Health Service. Bruce first joined my office as a legislative fellow assigned to the Senate Labor Committee, on which I served as ranking Republican member. It was during this time that Bruce was my lead counsel on the original Prescription Drug User Fee legislation, which will again be up for reauthorization next year. Between late 1992 and mid-1995, Bruce served as the Assistant Director for Policy at the National Institutes of Health's, NIH, Office of Technology Transfer. During that time, he played a key role in formulating NIH policy on gene patenting, sponsored research agreements, and pricing clauses in Federal Licenses and research agreements. When Bruce returned to my staff in 1995 on loan from the NIH, I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee. I assigned him to a wide range of high-priority, complex and sometimes contentious issues. For example, Bruce became an expert in the manner in which the historic 1995 General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs--the GATT Treaty--intersected with FDA regulatory requirements and U.S. and international intellectual property laws, including the special rules related to pharmaceutical patents. In 1997, my friend from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy and I decided to collaborate together on legislation that would increase health insurance coverage to children of low-income families to be financed by increased tobacco taxes. At the beginning of the effort to enact what would become the very popular and very successful CHIP program that provides millions of children with health insurance, there was a bipartisan team of six staffers. Representing me were Bruce, my longstanding, loyal, and very talented aide and current chief of staff, Trish Knight, and Rob Foreman, who went on to run the legislative office of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services during the busy and challenging time period when the Medicare Modernization Act and the new prescription drug benefit was being written and implemented. Senator Kennedy was also represented by a team of energetic experts: Lauren Ewers, who was a key player in the Kassebaum-Kennedy Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, better known as the HIPAA law, David Nexon, a leading Congressional staff authority of health issues who was the nemesis to many a Republican Member and staffer alike on a plethora of issues, and, last, but certainly not least, Nick Littlefield, a visionary and inspirational leader and master legislative tactician. It is my firm hope now that Nick and David are both in the private sector that they see the error of Senator Kennedy's liberal ways and allow their inner-conservative selves to come out. One of the things that make this institution a great place is the ability to battle one another politically but to do so always with respect and, as often as possible, with good humor. One thing you can say about Bruce is that he made us laugh, sometimes not even intentionally. I will never forget the time when I was testifying before the HELP Committee on the children's health bill. I noticed that Senator Kennedy's staff had made far better charts than my own crack staff could muster. I ordered Bruce to borrow Senator Kennedy's posters for me to use and was prepared to enjoy my friend from Massachusetts' surprise and dismay when he discovered the temporary heist. But the situation got even better when Bruce thoroughly distracted Senator Kennedy's opening statement by dropping the posters on the floor after getting into a verbal altercation with none other than that great shrinking violent of the press corps, Adam Clymer of the New York Times. Apparently, Mr. Clymer was dismayed that the charts were blocking his and other reporters' view and demanded that the offending charts be moved. Bruce explained that he was just doing his job. To which Mr. Clymer responded in his normal diplomatic style: But do you have to be so bad at it? Suffice it to say that years later when Vice President Cheney made that now famous comparison between Mr. Clymer and an unflattering part of the anatomy, some of us thought back to his discourse with Bruce. Although from time to time Bruce could drive me out of my gourd, it did not stop me from giving him challenging assignments. Once he wrote a history of how the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act treated exports of products for me to deliver at a major conference we were to attend in Salt Lake. As it was time to depart for the airport, Bruce looked up and said, ``But I am only up to 1938!'' But he got it done. In 2003, I promoted Bruce to be my right-hand man by naming him as the Judiciary Committee's chief counsel and staff director, where he advised me and other committee members on matters pertaining to executive branch and judicial nominations, criminal and civil justice, counterterrorism, immigration, intellectual property, antitrust, and constitutional law. During his tenure as chief counsel, Bruce helped devise and implement a successful strategy that resulted in the passage of the Justice for All Act, a key legislative priority for me, Senator Leahy, Chairman Sensenbrenner, and Representatives Conyers and William Delahunt. This law helps ensure that DNA technology will help bring to justice those who have eluded arrest and trial in serious crimes such as rape and, just as importantly, helps set free those wrongfully convicted and incarcerated. I feel compelled to add that this success was achieved despite the fact that during a particularly sensitive time in the often-contentious negotiations, Bruce did not at first completely comply with my direct order to refrain from speaking to anyone from the Department of Justice, specifically including a certain sometimes confounding official we all knew well. I am very proud that, with Bruce's help, during my last 2 years as Judiciary Committee Chairman, we were able to work to have the Senate confirm 104 Federal judges. I am also proud that when a few Republican staffers acted overzealously and improperly with regard to confidential committee member files concerning judicial nominations, my staff including Bruce, Reed O'Connor now Senator Cornyn's chief counsel, and Grace Becker--now a Deputy Assistant Attorney General at DOJ, helped me and the committee set the matter back on the right course. Regardless of whether it is ultimately determined that any laws were or were not violated, in this case the conduct of accessing another's computer files was simply wrong and unacceptable. With the advice and counsel of staffers like Bruce Artim and Bruce Cohen, Senator Leahy's Democratic Chief Counsel and others, I think the Judiciary Committee faced up to a serious breach of comity and concluded, despite those who might erroneously think that anything goes in political combat, anything does not, and should not, go in the Senate, especially not on the Senate Judiciary Committee. I do not shy away from political battles. I do not like to lose political battles. But when I fight a political battle, I fight straight up. Part of what makes our country so great and so strong is that for over 200 years we have agreed to disagree agreeably. Bruce understood that fighting fairly and ethically with our adversaries in the Senate today helps ensure that this body will remain strong and respectful tomorrow. In the current 109th Congress, Bruce served as the chief counsel and staff director of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee but still made time to advise me on a wide range of matters, including the confirmations of the Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts, and Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Samuel Alito; reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act; the Bankruptcy Reform bill; and the Class Action Reform legislation. I frequently called upon Bruce to counsel me on difficult matters involving ethics. In recent years, stem cell research has required a careful study of complex issues relating to ethics, law, science, economics, intellectual property, politics and religion. Bruce Artim accompanied me every step in my journey to understand and formulate policy on stem cell research. He worked closely with key Senate staffers, such as David Bowen of Senator Kennedy's staff, and Sudip Parikh of Senator Specter's staff. He helped me and other Senators and House members draft the critical pieces of legislation that are at the center of national debate. I could list so many laws to which Bruce contributed--the cord blood bank law, modifications to FDA export law we enacted not once, but twice, Federal Tort Claims Act coverage for Community Health Center workers, the bioterrorism legislation, and of course, patent law and especially drug patent law. As Bruce leaves, there are many voids we struggle to fill. There is so much we will miss about Bruce. He was undoubtedly the most accomplished Hill expert on the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Expiration Act, better known as Waxman-Hatch or Hatch-Waxman. We will miss his pink bicycle down in the Hart garage, the many jokes left on the cutting room floor, and a never-ending supply of neckties which supplied so many Hill gentlemen in a time of need. I have always appreciated Bruce's wise counsel, his deep commitment to the Senate and his ability to make everyone laugh even during extremely tense legislative negotiations. He made a tremendous contribution to the Senate, and I know that he will do the same for his new employer, Eli Lilly and Company. Mr. President, Bruce will be missed. He was not only a congressional staffer, he was a true friend. So as the 109th Congress draws to a close, I hope my colleagues will join me in expressing appreciation to Bruce Artim for his loyalty and his significant contributions he has made to the Senate over his record 11 years; a record Bruce would be pleased to note now exceeds that of Doug Guerdat. I hope my colleagues will join me in saluting Bruce's 25 years as a public servant and wishing him all of the best in the future.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I rise today to congratulate my Senate colleagues on the passage of a tremendously important piece of legislation, the Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2006, H.R. 6344. This act contains numerous provisions whose implementations are vital, and would provide specific goals and measurement standards to evaluate the effectiveness of our national drug control policy. I want to highlight a specific provision of this bill that, when enacted, will benefit thousands of Americans who are struggling with addiction to drugs. As our country seeks to develop better treatments for drug abuse, countless Americans continue to fall prey to illicit drugs. As their lives are torn apart by these addictions, many find the strength to call out to doctors for help. Unfortunately, some of these calls for help go unanswered due to limitations placed on physicians with regard to their treatment options. In 2000, I worked with Senators Levin and Biden to pass the Drug Addiction and Treatment Act. This groundbreaking legislation allowed certified physicians to prescribe appropriate medication to patients suffering from drug addiction. Under this law, physicians are prescribing the drug buprenorphine to patients fighting their addiction to heroin and other opiates. The results have been tremendous, and countless lives have been saved by breaking the addiction cycle. However, current law caps the number of patients a qualified physician can treat with this medication at 30. Unfortunately, many doctors are at their cap and are forced to turn patients away due to this artificial limitation. I have spoken with numerous doctors who have relayed amazing stories of patients turning their lives around by using this medication and participating in treatment. These patients have gone on to return to the workforce and continue their lives as productive citizens, free of the scourge of drug abuse. This bipartisan provision included in this bill would expand the number of patients whom qualified doctors are allowed to treat. Passage of this legislation will provide immediate assistance to countless Americans who are fighting for their lives. It is clear this cap needs to be raised. To make an analogy, a doctor would not turn away a broken arm because he or she had already fixed 30 arms that month! The doctor would not stand for it, and neither would society. The same should be true for physicians treating drug addiction. Given that the destructive effects of drug addiction are so much greater than a broken arm, we should strive to ensure that the healing hands of doctors are not bound by unintended mandates. Doctors should be allowed and encouraged to help as many as possible, and this legislation allows them to treat many drug addicts that are otherwise being turned away. This provision will immediately help countless Americans get the treatment they seek and so desperately need. I highlight this provision as a sample of the meaningful substance in this measure, and I applaud the efforts of lawmakers in both Chambers of Congress whose tireless efforts produced this bill.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as this session draws to a close, I must take this opportunity to make a few comments on the outstanding record left behind by our colleague from Ohio, Senator Mike DeWine. I have worked closely with Senator DeWine ever since he came to the Senate. I sit with him on three committees: the Select Committee on Intelligence; the Judiciary Committee, where he chaired the Antitrust Subcommittee; and on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, where he chairs the Retirement Security and Aging Subcommittee. I consider Mike to be a Senator's Senator--he is a man who truly represents his constituents, who studies the issues, works hard, and does his very, very best to do what is right. His departure from the Senate is a great loss to this body and a great loss to Ohio. The DeWine legacy is considerable. One of the major focuses of his work, which I admire greatly, is the protection of children. Senator DeWine has sponsored numerous pieces of legislation aimed at protecting children and enabling prosecution of those who perpetrate acts against children. These include the Protecting Children Against Crime Act of 2003, which became law as part of the PROTECT Act, the National Child Protection Amendments Act of 2000, the Child Abuse Prevention and Enforcement Act of 1999, and the Protection Against Sexual Predators Act of 1998. It is significant to note that Senator DeWine is a founding member and cochair of the Senate Caucus on Missing, Exploited and Runaway Children. The Senator's work to protect children extends beyond legal issues. He is the author and true leader in the Senate of legislation to protect children from the horrors of tobacco abuse by giving the Food and Drug Administration the authority to regulate it. He has also taken a leadership role in efforts to stop underage teen drinking by sponsoring the Sober Truth on Preventing Underage Drinking Act. The STOP Act has a good chance of becoming law this year. But the centerpiece of Mike DeWine's prochild agenda is his work to incentivize pharmaceutical company testing of drugs used on children. Mike DeWine showed this whole body the safety risks children face when they take prescription medications never studied in the pediatric population. I can just hear Mike saying now, ``Children are not little adults.'' And he is right. He worked across the aisle and across the Capitol to get the Pediatric Research Equity Act of 2003 enacted. This was no easy task. It took grit and determination. He fought big PhRMA. He did it for the kids. And he won. I am only sorry he will not be here next year as we work to reauthorize it. In his years as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator DeWine emerged as a leader in the area of antitrust law and competition policy. Both as the chairman and the ranking Republican member of the Antitrust Subcommittee, Mike has played an invaluable role in each significant legislative change to the antitrust laws enacted in the past decade. In addition to his legislative achievements in antitrust law, Senator DeWine has become known for the subcommittee's active oversight of the antitrust enforcement activities of the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission. During the subcommittee's consideration of numerous individual mergers, his thoughtful analysis and evenhanded approach earned him considerable respect in the antitrust community as a tough, but eminently fair, advocate of both consumer interests and strong competition. Earlier this year at the American Antitrust Institute's annual conference, where he and Senator Kohl received an achievement award for their many contributions to antitrust law, Senator DeWine commented that ``[i]t's always difficult to find that fine line between aggressive, healthy competition and destructive or anticompetitive behavior, but it's our job on the Antitrust Subcommittee to keep trying, and to promote the type of competition that helps everyone.'' From my perspective, Senator DeWine not only tried but succeeded admirably in drawing this very difficult line in a careful and appropriately balanced way. His expertise, institutional knowledge, and thoughtful analysis will be sorely missed. Also of note in discussing Senator DeWine's work on the Judiciary Committee are his anticrime efforts. Mike has been a real leader on issues such as the 1998 law, the Crime Identification Technology Act, which increased funding for State and local law enforcement by $1.25 billion. His work in anticrime technology continued in 2004, when the Senate adopted his amendment to the intelligence reform bill that would upgrade the Federal Bureau of Investigation's computer networks. That bill was signed into law on December 17, 2004. Mike has either sponsored or cosponsored a number of bills to help law enforcement protect Ohio communities, including the local law enforcement block grant program, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, the Rape Kits and DNA Evidence Backlog Elimination Act of 2003, and the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2004. Mike DeWine's work to protect Ohioans extended into the compelling field of mental illness treatment as well. In fact, Senator DeWine is known throughout the country for his work related to the treatment of mental health in the criminal justice system, including bills such as the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act and America's Law Enforcement and Mental Health Project. Another DeWine contribution is the Poison Control Center Enhancement and Awareness Act, a significant contribution to public health which established a national toll-free poison control hotline and provided substantial assistance to local poison control centers. Finally and more recently, Senator DeWine authored a bill to protect children's eyes by restricting their access to potentially damaging cosmetic contact lenses. Our new leader, Senator McConnell, said this of Senator DeWine, and I could not have said it better: I have never observed a more skillful legislator than he during my time in the Senate . . . You know he is a formidable force who, when he has made up his mind about an issue, never lets go. Many bills that have cleared the Senate in the ten years the Senator from Ohio has been here have the fingerprints of Mike DeWine. He is truly an extraordinary legislator. I echo those sentiments. Mike DeWine has been an outstanding Member of our body, a good friend to me, and a superb representative for his constituents. He and his staff work hard and their work has yielded incredible benefits for the American people. It is with great pride that I commend his achievements to this body, and I thank Mike for all he has done to make the U.S. Senate a more effective and accomplished body. I will miss him, as a legislator, as a colleague, and as a friend. Lincoln Chafee Mr. President, I am grateful for the opportunity to take a few moments to recognize the service and devotion to the U.S. Senate by my colleague and friend, Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island. A true Rhode Islander, Lincoln Chafee was born in Providence, attended a Warwick public school, and earned a degree from Brown University, where he captained the wrestling team. As an avid horse enthusiast, he attended the horseshoeing school at Montana State University and worked as a blacksmith at harness racetracks in the United States and Canada, but only a handful of years slipped by before he returned to his home in Rhode Island. Lincoln then entered politics in 1985 as a delegate to the Rhode Island Constitutional Convention. A year later he was elected to the first of two successive terms on the Warwick City Council. In November 1992, Lincoln became the first Republican elected mayor of Warwick in 32 years--and, with his positive vision, he so won over the hearts and minds of voters that he was reelected for another three terms in a reliably Democratic city. He held the mayoral post until appointed by Governor Lincoln Almond in November 1999 to fill the unexpired Senate term of his late father, John Chafee. In November 2000, he was overwhelmingly elected to the U.S. Senate. As I, Lincoln has a great interest in policy that affects the health of our Nation's people, and I am proud to have had the honor of working with him on a number of initiatives that made Americans healthier. I admire Lincoln for taking a stand on stem cell research. He has supported important legislation and joined a bipartisan group of colleagues in calling on President Bush to expand the Federal policy on embryonic stem cell research. Senator Chafee and I share similar views on this issue: he is opposed to any cloning with the intention of creating a human life but strongly supports legislation that would allow stem cell researchers to use excess embryos which were created for in vitro fertilization purposes and would otherwise be discarded. I respect and appreciate his courage to stand up for his convictions in the face of such a controversial issue. Lincoln has been a champion for breast cancer research since his arrival in the Senate in 1999. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of his Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act, which would make Federal grants available for the development and operation of eight national centers that would conduct research on how environmental factors may contribute to the causes of breast cancer. In recognition of his outstanding leadership in this arena, Lincoln has been honored by the National Breast Cancer Coalition and also presented with the Avon Foundation Pink Ribbon Crusader Award. Senator Chafee has been a leader in the fight to reauthorize and maintain adequate funding for the State Children's Health Insurance Program--also called CHIP. I worked very closely with his father to write that law in 1997. I recognize that Lincoln is also dedicated to the goal of this program, which is to provide health insurance to low- income, uninsured children, and I thank him for his diligent efforts. We have worked tirelessly to ensure that funding continues to make the program available for these children. Senator Lincoln Chafee is a great man, a loyal Rhode Islander, and a great American. I thank and commend him for all his selfless work. His contributions have made his State and the whole country significantly better than before his arrival in Washington. We will all miss his presence here in the U.S. Senate, but I doubt we have seen the last of Lincoln Chafee in the way of public service. I wish him and his family health, happiness, and the best of luck in all future endeavors. Rick Santorum Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to my colleague and friend from Pennsylvania, Senator Rick Santorum, who will soon be ending a very distinguished and impressive career in the U.S. Congress. In my 30 years of service in the U.S. Senate, I have seen a lot of Senators come and go. However, it is hard to think of anyone who has had more energy, more enthusiasm, and who, in such a short period of time, has had a greater impact on many important issues affecting our families and our society, than has the junior Senator from Pennsylvania. After receiving advanced degrees in business and law, Rick was elected to the House of Representatives in 1990 at the age of 32. He served two terms in that body before running for the Senate, he distinguished himself as part of the so-called Gang of 7 that helped uncover the House banking scandal and called for reforms of the House. The same year he was first elected to Congress, Rick was married to his wife Karen, and they started their family that now includes six children. As the father of six myself, I know firsthand the challenges and joys that come from having a large family. Rick has done such a marvelous job balancing home life with public life with its demanding schedule and its never-ending conflicts. After winning election to the Senate in 1994, Rick Santorum immediately began exerting leadership on issues in several different legislative areas but notably in the areas of health, agriculture, and welfare reform. Upon winning reelection to his second term in the Senate, his GOP colleagues validated his natural leadership by choosing Rick to chair the Senate Republican Conference. Although Senator Santorum is well known for his strong defense of many conservative positions and his articulate voice on many issues affecting the sanctity of the family, it would be wrong to characterize him as a strict partisan. I have seen many examples where Rick has reached across the aisle to his Democratic colleagues and found common ground on issues of importance to all Americans. One notable example of this is on an issue that is also very important to me--promoting charitable initiatives. Several years ago, Senator Santorum teamed up with another of our most distinguished and thoughtful colleagues, Senator Joe Lieberman, to introduce the Charity, Aid, Recovery, and Empowerment, CARE, Act. The CARE Act was designed to address many problems faced by the charitable sector of our Nation and to help them to better achieve their goals of lifting up the impoverished among us and of helping all of us better assist our fellow man in times of need. As an original cosponsor of the CARE Act, I saw up close the tireless dedication and unending efforts that Rick Santorum put into promoting this legislation, not just in the Senate but with the White House. While this very ambitious legislation has not entirely been enacted, Rick can take a great deal of justifiable pride in the fact that great strides have been made in achieving the goals of the CARE Act. Moreover, he can take great satisfaction in knowing that his colleagues in the Senate and the House, policymakers in the executive branch, those who serve so diligently in the charitable community, and indeed concerned Americans from all walks of life, are much more aware of the accomplishments and the needs of the charitable sector because of the efforts of Senator Santorum. Mr. President, the junior Senator from Pennsylvania is going to be long remembered in this body, and he will be sorely missed. He will be remembered and missed for his intelligence, his articulate voice, his courage, his energy, and his leadership. I salute Rick as a fine public servant as he enters the next stage of his life, and I thank him for his dedication and for his hard work. I am sure I am joined by all of our colleagues as we wish Rick and his family the very best in the future. Jim Talent Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the accomplishments of Senator Jim Talent from the great State of Missouri. I feel privileged to have worked with Jim on different pieces of legislation, and I greatly admire his dedication to his constituents and respect his many accomplishments during his time in public office. Jim's official, political career started when he was only 28 years old, after he was elected to the Missouri House of Representatives. He went on to serve for 8 years in that position, and he worked diligently to pass meaningful legislation which benefited the people of Missouri. In 1992, Jim was elected to the House of Representatives from Missouri's second district. Jim wasted no time in tackling important issues and introduced the Real Welfare Reform Act of 1994. Much of the ideas from this legislation were phased into the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996, which I joined Jim in voting for. This historic piece of bipartisan legislation has had a profound positive impact and dramatically changed the way that this country helps its neediest citizens. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, welfare caseloads in this country have declined 58 percent since the enactment of this legislation. These results show that, even as a new Senator, Jim had tremendous foresight in crafting meaningful ideas which addressed a serious problem in this country. Jim also served on many important committees during his time in the House, including the Armed Services Committee, the Small Business Committee, and the Education and Workforce Committee. During his time on these committees, Jim continued to utilize his tremendous work ethic in reviewing and drafting important initiatives which benefited American citizens. In addition, Jim worked endlessly as an advocate for small business, which he recognized as the financial backbone of our country. In November of 2002, Jim began the next phase of his service after being elected to serve as Senator for his State of Missouri. Being born and raised in Missouri, Jim had a great knowledge base of the State and thus the background to recognize important issues which affected his constituents and the State as a whole. I can truthfully say there has been no Senator in the history of this body who has worked harder to represent the history of his State than Jim Talent. Jim served on four diverse Senate committees: Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry; Energy and Natural Resources; Aging; and the Armed Services Committee. During this Congress, Jim and I worked together on the joint resolution which proposed an amendment to the Constitution authorizing Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. Jim and I were in complete agreement on this subject, and I greatly respected his steadfast support of this proposed legislation. During debate of this topic, Jim continually provided insightful commentary that showed his heartfelt support of a very important topic. Jim summed up his feelings with the following sentiment: ``The flag is the unifying symbol of our Republic. It represents that common history and heritage which holds America together notwithstanding religious, cultural, or political differences. Physical and public desecration of the flag degrades those values and coarsens America far more than any speech or political dissent possibly could.'' We were both sorry to see the amendment narrowly miss passage, but I will always admire and respect Jim's unwavering support on this important topic. A final item I would like to draw attention to is the Combat Meth Act that Jim drafted along with Senator Feinstein. Recognizing the disastrous effects that have been wrought on American neighborhoods and families due to this horrible drug, Senators Talent and Feinstein wrote this new law aimed at making the ingredients used to cook meth less available to law breakers. While we didn't always agree on the approach to this effort, we were united in efforts to stop the insidious damage inflicted by this drug. I applaud Jim's efforts in drafting an incredibly important law that we all hope will have a significant impact on decreasing the amount of toxic meth labs in our communities. As Jim embarks on the next phase of his career, I wish him luck in all of his future endeavors. I also want to extend my congratulations and appreciation for Jim's legislative achievements during his time in Congress. I am confident that his character and attributes will continue to steer him toward a life of accomplishment and benefit to those around him. Jim Jeffords Mr. President, I would like to extend my best wishes to my good friend and colleague, Senator Jim Jeffords. For the last 18 years, I have been privileged to serve with Jim here in the United States Senate. When he first came to the Senate in 1989, he was assigned to the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee. At the time, I was the ranking minority member of that committee and worked closely with Jim. In fact, when Jim later became chairman of the committee, he changed the name to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, better known today as the Senate HELP Committee. He did that because he felt that the purpose of the committee was to help people. Later, he and I also served together as members of the Senate Finance Committee. Jim has an undergraduate degree from Yale University and graduated from Harvard University Law School. He served in the United States Navy for 3 years and was in the Reserves until 1990 when he retired as a captain. He started his career in politics in 1966 when he was elected to the Vermont State Senate. In 1968, he became the attorney general for the State of Vermont. In 1974, he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives where he tells a very interesting story about the day that he was sworn in as a Member of the House. As Jim tells it, 1974 was not a good year to be a Republican candidate--for those who do not remember, it was the year that President Richard Nixon resigned due to the Watergate scandal. The 1974 freshman class had 92 new Members of which only 17 were Republicans--two of them were our Senate colleagues, Chuck Grassley and Jim Jeffords. At the time, Chuck was on crutches and Jim was in a neck brace. As the two walked down the aisle, Jim heard one of the Democrat Members say, ``There are two we almost got.'' Well, all I can say is, thank goodness the Democrats didn't get Chuck and Jim. The two of them have been an integral part of both the House and the Senate. Senator Jeffords has always been known for his self deprecating sense of humor. I will never forget his story about being interviewed by a reporter with Congresswoman Millicent Fenwick, who, as many know, was a very elegant woman from New Jersey, on their first impressions of what it was like to live in Washington. Congresswoman Fenwick talked about her lovely view of the city from across the river. When asked what it was like for him to be in Washington, Jim replied that he lived in a Winnebago in the parking lot of a Holiday Inn and he had a view of the hotel dumpster. Quite honestly, Jim is probably one of the most humble and down to earth people I have met in the Senate. Jim is someone who fought hard for increased education funding, especially for special needs children. He is also very passionate about environmental issues. But in my opinion, one of Jim's most significant achievements was the difference he made on health care issues. Jim was committed to providing a prescription drug benefit to Medicare beneficiaries and was actively involved in writing the Tripartisan Medicare prescription drug bill which was considered on the floor of the Senate in 2002. Jim, Chuck Grassley, former Senator John Breaux, Senator Olympia Snowe, and I all got together and wrote a bill that provided a drug benefit for Medicare beneficiaries. It was the foundation of the Medicare prescription drug benefit, Medicare Part D, which was included in the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003. Jim provided valuable input and did his best to look out for what was in the best interest of senior citizens and the disabled. So far, 38 million Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in the Medicare Part D Program. Before I close, I want to share an insightful story about Jim that is indicative of the way he has led his life. When Jim interviewed Paul Harrington to be the HELP Committee's Health Policy director, it was at his home in Shrewsbury, VT. Shrewsbury is a very rural town in a very rural State and that is best typified by the Brown Covered Bridge. Jim conducted the job interview in his garage where he had a large pile of bent nails on his work bench. While he discussed the possibility of Paul joining his staff, they each began straightening out the used nails. At the end of the conversation they had created quite a large pile of nails that were useful again. Paul shared this experience with many of his friends and colleagues when he left the Senate because he felt that the circumstances of the job interview were indicative of Jim's philosophy and his approach to problem solving. I couldn't agree more. There's a practical side to Jim's nature that seeks to adapt old solutions to solving new problems. Using the analogy of the nails, Jim has always been able to take up used ideas from the past and put them to good use in new circumstances by reshaping them to fit the new needs of today. I want everyone to know that I consider Jim to be one of my dear friends in the Senate, and while I was disappointed when he decided to become an Independent, I respected his decision. And so did former Senate majority leader Bob Dole, who is a close friend of Jim's. In fact, on the first year anniversary of Jim's big decision, Bob sent Jim a pineapple upside down cake. He told Jim that he looked all over for a cake to send him and came to the conclusion that a pineapple upside down cake described Jim the best. While that may be true, let me say that Jim is a man who has the best of intentions and always does what he believes is in the best interest of his constituents. While serving in the Senate, Jim has always been an independent force and that is one of the main reasons that I respect him so much. Policy always came before politics, something very rare in Washington these days. He has a great love for the institution. He is passionate about issues he cares about and it showed when he offered an amendment in committee or spoke on the Senate floor. Jim has dedicated his life to public service and the great people of Vermont are very fortunate to have had him representing them in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. He is a great legislator and he will be missed by all of us. I wish Jim Jeffords all the best in the years ahead. Conrad Burns Mr. President, I want to pay special tribute to my good friend and colleague from Montana, Senator Conrad Burns, known by his staff, Montanans, and myself as just Conrad. It is hard for me to imagine a more down-to-earth Member of Congress than Conrad. His straight- shooting analysis of the issues and his humorous outlook on life made life around the Senate more enjoyable. Utahns in particular owe a debt of gratitude to Senator Burns. As chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, Senator Burns worked with our delegation to meet many of Utah's needs. First and foremost, he oversaw a dramatic increase in funding for the Payments-in-Lieu-of-Taxes (PILT) Program, which provides funding for schools, roads, and public safety services in rural communities in Utah where the tax base is limited due to the predominance of tax-exempt Federal land. Chairman Burns also helped me to pass legislation which expedites research and development projects on Bureau of Land Management, BLM, land. Senator Burns also helped provide funding for Sandy City, UT, to upgrade its drinking and storm water infrastructure. With this funding, Sandy City will now be able to prevent flooding which has threatened the homes of many citizens in the past. Over the years, Conrad has been extremely helpful to many Utah communities. He helped provide funding to protect the Range Creek/ Rainbow Glass Ranch for conservation purposes, to improve drinking water for the citizens of Centerfield, Mayfield, Park City, and Eagle Mountain, UT, to provide for the Sand Hollow Recreation Area, and to increase the reach of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Conrad has also helped Utah and our country continue down the path of energy independence and accelerate Utah oil and gas production by helping to fund the Utah Oil and Gas Leasing Internet Pilot Program. Allow me to share just one example of how Senator Conrad Burns is, and always will be, a man of the people. The highway system around the Washington, DC area provides for express lanes for vehicles carrying passengers. A regular feature of the Washington commute is lines of passengers hoping to be picked up by drivers who are driving their way. Much of the population of the high occupancy vehicle express lanes is made up of single drivers who have picked up these passengers, thus allowing them to use the express lands. For years, my friend Senator Burns would pick up these riders in his less than glamorous van. They would have great conversations together along the way, and in most cases, the passengers would not have the slightest idea that they had been picked up and were now chatting with a U.S. Senator. And knowing the junior senator from Montana, I am sure that's just the way he wanted it. Senator Conrad Burns has been a great friend to the people of Utah and a great friend to me. I will miss his presence here in the Senate, and I wish him the greatest of success in his future endeavors. George Allen Mr. President, I rise today to honor the Senate career of my distinguished colleague from the State of Virginia, the Honorable George Allen. The contributions he has made to Congress and this country are significant, and we owe him a debt of gratitude for all that he has given. George has spent most of his career in public service. A few years after earning his law degree, he served as a delegate in the Virginia Assembly before becoming a Congressman in 1991. He made a successful run for Governor of Virginia and presided over 4 years of strong economic growth and steady job creation. In 2001, he joined the U.S. Senate, and I have been honored to call him my colleague for the past 6 years. George has been a tireless advocate for a smaller, more efficient Government throughout his career. He helped lead the way to enactment of the President's tax cut package in 2001 and 2003 and has been an articulate defender of the progrowth tax policies that we have pursued over the past 6 years, including the reduction in capital gains and dividend taxes, the repeal of the death tax, and the reduction in the tax burden of our Nation's small businesses, where so many of our jobs are created. These were lessons he learned well from his days as a Governor. He has done more than just pay lip-service to the importance of keeping taxes low: He has fought the good fight as well. He introduced and worked hard to ensure the passage of the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act, legislation that prohibited taxes on Internet access or taxation from multiple jurisdictions on goods bought over the Internet. Over the last few years, George has achieved an almost legendary status with the technology community in this country. In 2001, George was appointed to serve as chairman of the Senate High Tech Task Force where he advocated for policies to make America a leader in innovation from nanotechnology to broadband to the education of future engineers and scientists. So much of the technology agenda being advanced in this country today spawned from the efforts of George as the High Tech Task Force chairman. If you were to meet with the top executives of any technology company with a significant presence in the United States, they would tell you what a wonderful advocate George Allen has been for their company and their industry. I have heard it time and again from hundreds of executives. George also has served our party well. His success as head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee during the 2004 election cycle is a result of the Senator's bedrock faith in his beliefs and his ability to articulate that which he holds true. So many times, politicians come to Washington with strongly held convictions and a desire to do good and instead take the more expedient path to reelection and power. When it comes to George Allen's career, no one can say he ever abandoned his belief in the virtues of a small government and lower taxes. These are the very beliefs I hold true as well, and I was glad to have him on my side. At its heart, politics is a battle over ideas. Our distinguished Senator from Virginia earned the respect of us all for the pitched battles he fought to advance the cause of freedom and economic growth for the United States and the world. Personally, I have admired George Allen for a long time. In my opinion, his demeanor, his knowledge, and his drive are all exemplary and worthy of emulation. Every interaction I have had with George over the years has done nothing but bolster my original opinion of him. He reminds me more of Ronald Reagan than any national politician I have met. That is a high compliment for a great statesman. I would like to take this time to thank my friend, George Allen, and to wish him, Susan, and the rest of the Allen family the very best as he leaves this great institution to take on new challenges. Mark Dayton

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, to me it is simply unconscionable that the Food and Drug Administration, one of the best little agencies in Government, has gone leaderless for such a period of time. Here we have an agency that governs, by some estimates, 25 cents out of every consumer dollar, and yet we treat it as a stepchild. We do not provide it with the funding it needs. We allow it to exist without a confirmed commissioner for months and months on end, for repeated periods. And yet we expect it to be the vital consumer watchdog agency it was intended to be. When you think about what this agency does, what the daily business of the FDA is, you can see how dire the situation really is. This is an agency that makes certain the drugs and medical devices we use are safe and effective, that the cosmetics, dietary supplements, and over-the-counter medications we count on are sold safely, with truthful and nonmisleading claims. This agency regulates animal drugs and radiological devices and so much more. Yet, time after time, it does without a confirmed commissioner. And this is the absolutely wrong time for that to happen. Think about the key FDA issues we are facing: the safety of the food supply, how to improve drug safety, instituting a new system of mandatory adverse event reporting for serious events associated with the use of dietary supplements and nonprescription drugs, extending the user fee programs for drugs and devices, and the incentives for pediatric drug testing--and I have named only a few of the issues. We are facing all these pressing public policy issues, and yet we expect the agency to do its job without a confirmed commissioner. That is not right. It is simply not right. The President has nominated a well-qualified, more-than-capable medical doctor to the position of Commissioner of Food and Drugs. I know Dr. Von Eschenbach well. He is a man of integrity. He is a good manager. He is a good listener. He knows the importance of working well with Congress, and I believe he will work well with us. I urge my colleagues--no, I implore my colleagues--to do what is right and vote to invoke cloture on this nomination. It is what Dr. Von Eschenbach deserves. It is what the agency deserves. And it is what the American people deserve.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I rise in solemn tribute to CPL Adam A. Galvez of the Marines who gave his life in the service of his country during the global war on terrorism. Over the past few weeks, I have had a chance to talk with Adam's mother Amy and his father Tony. They are wonderful people who are truly proud of their son. In speaking with them, I quickly learned just what a hero Adam was. A lot of people use that word ``hero'' today without thinking about what it really means. I like to define it as an individual doing extraordinary things that serve the greater good. Adam's actions clearly fit the bill. For example, I understand that a month before his death, Adam was wounded while outside a building with several fellow marines after a suicide bomber detonated an explosive device. The explosion caused the building to collapse. Yet, instead of tending to his own wounds, Adam, began to dig, while under fire, for his fellow marines trapped in the rubble. That is the mark of a true hero. Accordingly, I am proud to say that the Salt Lake City Council unanimously voted to name a street in my hometown the ``Adam Galvez Street.'' I cannot think of anything more appropriate. I also want to acknowledge East High School sophomore Junior Cruz, who as part of his Eagle Scout project came up with the idea of ``Adam Galvez Street'' and saw it through to its fruition. I am blessed to live in a great State in the greatest country in the world. When I learn about the lives of young heroes such as Adam Galvez, I am reminded that our true greatness lies in the sacrifice of such noble and brave service members. Private First Class Daniel G. Dolan, Usa Mr. President, on this the 65th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, I rise to pay tribute to a young American who gave his life to ensure that our nation will never be attacked again. That young man's name was PFC Daniel G. Dolan. Just 1 month before his 19th birthday, Private First Class Dolan joined the Army during a time of war. No doubt due to his professionalism, Private First Class Dolan was assigned to the 3rd Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division which, of course, is the elite 1st Stryker Brigade. This professionalism was also recognized when he was awarded, posthumously, the Bronze Star, Purple Heart and Combat Infantry Badge. We, as a nation, are truly blessed to have such young men and women who are willing to serve. Private First Class Dolan's life was short, but from what I have read it was full. I understand that he was an avid hockey player and fan who played for Roy High School and was part of an amateur hockey association. I also been told that standing up for what is right is something that Private First Class Dolan did since childhood, standing up for his little sister and the other children in the neighborhood. Most of all he was a wonderful son to his parents Tim and Fay Dolan. I believe that his sister Michelle said it best: ``Everyone was proud of him. He just wanted to serve his country, to be there for his country . . . I think he was scared when he went to Iraq, but he really wanted to go and serve us all.'' Such words can only describe a hero. Second Lieutenant Scott B. Lundell, Uang Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to a true American hero, 2LT Scott B. Lundell. Such a description is appropriate to describe Lieutenant Lundell, who was killed in an ambush while training an Afghan Army patrol in Oruzgan Province, Afghanistan. Lieutenant Lundell was by all accounts a first-rate officer. He had risen through the ranks, first enlisting in 2004 at the age of 32 in the Utah National Guard's 19th Special Forces Group and then graduating from Officer Candidate School. Lieutenant Lundell truly felt a calling to serve, especially after the events of September 11, 2001. I have read that his wife Jeanine remembers that he was not satisfied supporting the war from home but wanted to make a difference overseas, so much so that he did not wait for the next deployment of his unit. Instead he volunteered for his final assignment, training the Afghan military. Upon learning of his passing, Lieutenant Lundell's brother-in-law said, ``He did not die doing what he loved--he died doing what he felt passionately about.'' Lieutenant Lundell believed in the righteousness of cause so much that when the youngest of his four children was born he named her Liberty. I am humbled that I had the honor to represent such a patriot in this august body. Major Marta Maltby, Usar Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to MAJ Marta Maltby, who died of natural causes during her deployment with the 328th Combat Support Hospital at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany. This was the second time this intensive care nurse had deployed overseas during a time of war to care for our Nation's wounded. Major Maltby also deployed with the 328th during Operation Deseret Storm. Accordingly, she was awarded the Meritorious Service Medal. Recently, I was able to spend some time with Major Maltby's mother, during an Army Reserve ceremony that, in part, honored the major. I deeply appreciated this opportunity because I was able to learn just how caring and remarkable a person Marta was, as a daughter, wife, and as mother to two grown children. As I said at that ceremony, Major Maltby, and the rest of her unit, took a glimmer of hope and made survival and recovery a reality for hundreds of our servicemembers. These are also words that describe a true hero. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the Maltby family during their time of grieving. May they find solace in knowing that the country appreciates the selfless dedication of their wife, daughter and mother, MAJ Marta Maltby.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the nomination of Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach to be Commissioner Food and Drugs. I am pleased that the Senate is considering Dr. von Eschenbach's nomination and I strongly urge my colleagues to support him because the FDA needs a permanent Commissioner to lead the agency. The FDA has been criticized time and time again over this. To me, the first step toward promoting stability in the agency is for the Senate to confirm an FDA Commissioner. Dr. von Eschenbach is a capable administrator, extremely knowledgeable about health care and food and drug policy, and we can count on him to do the right thing. It is past the time that he be confirmed. I had the opportunity to work with Dr. von Eschenbach when he was the Director of the National Cancer Institute and found him to be personable and engaging. I also had a long meeting with Dr. von Eschenbach before his Senate confirmation hearing and was very impressed with his in depth knowledge on matters before the Food and Drug Administration. But even more impressive, Dr. von Eschenbach truly listened to my ideas regarding the FDA, and I greatly appreciated it. It is clear that he intends to work closely with the Congress. The bottom line is that I am convinced Dr. von Eschenbach is the best person for the job, and the sooner we get him confirmed, the better. I would like to take a moment to talk about FDA-related issues facing my home State of Utah and where Dr. von Eschenbach's strong involvement will be crucial. As my colleagues are aware, Utah is home to the largest concentration of dietary supplement companies in our Nation, so ensuring that the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, DSHEA, law is strongly and appropriately enforced is a high priority of mine. I have been told by every FDA Commissioner since Dr. Kessler that the FDA has adequate authority under DSHEA to make certain the supplement marketplace is safe, so it is my hope that Dr. von Eschenbach will make this a priority during his tenure as FDA Commissioner. In addition, as I have told him on more than one occasion, it is essential for Dr. von Eschenbach to work to finalize and implement good manufacturing practices--GMPs--for supplements as authorized by DSHEA. It is 12 years since they were authorized. And, despite the repeated contacts Senator Harkin and I have made, the reportedly drafted regulations have still not been issued. I want to encourage strongly Dr. von Eschenbach to address this matter once and for all. We will also be counting on the good doctor to implement the new system of mandatory reporting of serious adverse events--AERs--for nonprescription drugs and dietary supplements that is contained in S. 3546, the Hatch-Durbin bill we passed last night. It is my hope the House will pass the bill today--and it can be sent to the President for signature. When enacted, the Hatch-Durbin-Harkin-Enzi-Kennedy bill will require manufacturers of supplements and over-the-counter drugs to report to FDA any reports of serious problems associated with the use of the products. This is an important consumer protection bill, and it is important that FDA seek the funding to implement the program as Congress intends. I stand ready to work with the agency on this. Another concern I have expressed to Dr. von Eschenbach and his agency is the need to look out for the ``little guy'' once he becomes Commissioner. Utah is the home to more than 100 medical device companies, many of them small, and I want Dr. von Eschenbach and his staff to treat these companies fairly, especially when the FDA officials conduct inspections. There have been several complaints from manufacturers about the tactics that the FDA inspectors have taken. I think these complaints have merit. All I ask of Dr. von Eschenbach is that Utah companies be treated fairly by the FDA. I also am deeply concerned about the agency's lack of funding. This has been a growing concern, especially as it affects implementation of DSHEA, the new AEER system, and also the review of generic drug applications. While I realize that FDA has a lot of responsibilities, ranging from ensuring the safety of drugs and medical devices to protecting our country's food supply, it simply isn't fair to continue to pile on these responsibilities without providing the FDA with adequate funding. I assure Dr. von Eschenbach that I will work with him and my colleagues on the Senate Appropriations Committee and the Senate HELP Committee to ensure that the agency is provided with sufficient funding. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of Dr. von Eschenbach today so that the agency will finally have a permanent leader who will look out for the best interests of both the American people and an important Federal agency--the FDA.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that today I honor our distinguished majority leader, Senator Bill Frist. After serving with Bill for the last 12 years, I have come to know that he is a fine leader, an accomplished physician and a wonderful person. He is a man of compassion and conviction who has served our Country and this body well. It is only fitting that the majority leader of the U.S. Senate be a person who has dedicated his life to serving others. We all know of Bill's remarkable service to people around the world as a transplant surgeon for over 20 years. We have applauded him on several occasions as he has embarked on pilgrimages to help bring needed medical expertise to impoverished countries. We have seen him fight to secure over $15 billion in Federal funding to fight the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa. We have marveled at his dedication to serving the people of Tennessee. And time and again, we have witnessed him here on the floor of the U.S. Senate in the middle of the night conducting the people's business and ensuring the legacy of the Senate continues in the most professional manner. I hope everyone understands what a sacrifice it is to take on leadership duties here in Washington. The Federal Government never sleeps. When elected representatives come to Washington, they bring with them the hopes, dreams, and aspirations of each one of their constituents. Those who take this responsibility seriously spend every waking moment addressing concerns and working for the people they represent. That is quite a responsibility to bear. When you add to that responsibility the duties of being a leader and looking out for the interests of those you lead, the duties are immense and the sleepless nights really start to mount. I, for one, am grateful for Bill's exemplary service and willingness to spend his life looking out for the interests of others. Over the last 4 years, as Bill has been majority leader, I have had several occasions to seek him out and ask for his advice and counsel. In every instance, he has made himself available. There have been times when I have been working on issues of great importance to the citizens of Utah until 1, 2, or even 3 in the morning and, even though the items we were working on did not impact Bill or his constituents, he and his staff were gracious enough to stay up and work with me. For that I am grateful. As a highly trained physician, Bill has changed the way the Senate approaches health care policy. As a member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and the Senate Finance Committee, two committees with jurisdiction over health care issues, Bill has used his insight and training to shape and move legislation which greatly improves the health of Americans and the health care system in general. His skill as a physician has greatly improved the knowledge of this body and has made the lives of countless people better. Tennessee's storied history of capable Senators is long and includes such names as Andrew Jackson, Andrew Johnson, Howard Baker, and, my good friend, Fred Thompson. These men represented the best of what America has to offer, and Bill Frist has done much to add to this great legacy. As majority leader, Bill has shepherded through some very important legislation, including the Medicare prescription drug benefit legislation, scores and scores of tax cut legislation for the American people, legislation to reduce health care disparities among races, legislation to make health care more affordable and accessible, legislation to bolster America's defenses against bioterrorism, legislation to reduce childhood obesity, legislation to prevent childhood vaccine shortages, and legislation fighting drug abuse. Bill's willingness to support Federal funding for stem cell research this year made a huge difference in the national debate. I truly appreciated Bill's support earlier this year to pass legislation that would make more embryonic stem cell lines available for Federal funding. Stem cell research is one of the most important issues we face today. Stem cell research gives hope to millions of people who have none. More than 100 million Americans suffer from heart disease, cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, multiple sclerosis, and so many other life-threatening and life-debilitating diseases. Thanks to Bill's support, on July 18 of this year, the Senate passed H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, by a vote of 63 to 37. H.R. 810 would have allowed Federal funding for stem cell research using stem cell lines derived under strict ethical requirements from excess in vitro fertilization embryos, regardless of the date they were derived. I am grateful to Bill for taking such a bold and courageous stand on this issue for those suffering from these dreaded diseases and who will be helped by this research. In closing, Bill is a consummate family man who cherishes family and the values family represents. He has been married to his wife Karyn for 22 years and, even as majority leader of the U.S. Senate, he has always made time for his three sons: Harrison, Jonathan, and Bryan. There is no doubt Bill will be successful in any endeavor he undertakes as he leaves this great body. He has proven himself time and again and there is no question in my mind, he will be successful in the future. Mr. President, I appreciate the efforts and service of our good majority leader, Bill Frist. He is a great man, a great patriot, and a great friend, and I wish him well in his future endeavors.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the Dietary Supplement and Nonprescription Drug Consumer Protection Act represents a too-rare-but-productive alliance between Democrats and Republicans and between consumer groups and FDA-regulated products manufacturers. This is a significant consumer protection measure. On behalf of my cosponsors, Senators Durbin, Harkin, Enzi, Kennedy, and Cornyn, I want to express our enthusiasm that the bill will be approved by the Senate tonight. Senator Durbin, Senator Harkin, and I have been working on this legislation for more than 2 years. Our effort has been enhanced by the expertise of Chairman Enzi and Senator Kennedy. More recently, we were pleased that Senator Cornyn joined our ranks. I must also pay great tribute to our lead House sponsor, Representative Chris Cannon. We have consulted broadly with all who have an interest in this issue--dietary supplement and nonprescription drug manufacturers, consumer and public health groups, retailers, wholesalers, and, of course, their lawyers! . We have had meeting after meeting with the Food and Drug Administration. Wherever possible, we have incorporated provisions to address their concerns. The result--some 24 months and 21 drafts later--is the bill we consider tonight. Some of my colleagues may ask, ``Why is this bill necessary?'' Let me answer that question. Over half our population regularly uses dietary supplements. In fact, one government survey in 2004 indicated that nearly 60 percent of Americans regularly use dietary supplements to maintain or improve their healthy lifestyles. Millions more use nonprescription or over-the-counter drugs, such as aspirin or cold tablets. Although the FDA has a voluntary system to receive reports of problems with dietary supplements, and a mandatory system that covers some OTC drugs, there is no requirement for mandatory reporting for all of these products, as there is for prescription drugs and medical devices. I happen to believe supplements are vastly more safe than prescription drugs. Indeed, the law which sets out the regulatory framework for supplements--the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, DSHEA, which Senator Harkin and I authored with then- Representative Bill Richardson, explicitly treats most supplement products as foods. So, I in no way am suggesting that supplement products should be treated the same as prescription medications. When we enacted DSHEA, we separated supplements into two categories-- those that were on the market in the United States at the time of enactment, and those which would be marketed in the future--new dietary ingredients''. The presumption of DSHEA, which by and large has worked welt, is that products already on the market were being used safely. Some of these products, in fact, have been used safely for decades, if not millennia. Those ``grandfathered'' products are not subject to any kind of premarket clearance by the FDA. And for good reason. The cost and time alone required to see a product through FDA approval would sound the death knell for this industry. Most supplement products cannot be patented, and there is no incentive for a manufacturer to put its product through this costly and onerous process when any other manufacturer could benefit equally from the fruits of the research and investment. Finally, we also authorized the FDA to establish good manufacturing practice standards, GMPs, for supplements. Unfortunately, some 12 years later, those GMPs are still in the development stage, even though they were first finalized by the Clinton administration. Senator Harkin and I have spent several years trying to free them up, but that is a story for another time. So, in essence, grandfathered products are assumed to be safe. But, in case some may not be, we inserted in the law a strong safety provision and we also added an ``imminent hazard'' authority so that FDA can immediately remove from marketing a product it suspects to be unsafe, no questions asked. In 1994, we had no way of knowing what products would be marketed in the future. But to allay any concerns about the safety of new products, we required all manufacturers to submit information about new ingredients to the FDA before they are marketed. This NDI provision has by and large has worked well. It does allow the FDA premarket review for new products. The reason I mention this is to explain the regulatory framework we set up in 1994 to help assure supplements are manufactured and marketed safely. We provided the FDA with an arsenal of tools to enforce the law. Some they have used, others not. Since that time, the industry has grown. By some estimates, it is a $20 billion industry today. Critics of the industry have decried this growth as a negative development, and they have repeatedly said that the industry is ``unregulated.'' Every time I read that in the paper, or see it on TV, I cringe. And I know Senator Harkin does as well. For it is simply wrong to suggest the industry is unregulated. Indeed, under DSHEA, we set out a legal definition of what could be marketed as a dietary supplement. We set out a safety standard that products must have to meet. We allowed the FDA to develop good manufacturing process standards for supplements, and we have repeatedly asked the agency to issue those standards so they can be applied to products as they are being manufactured. We clarified what types of claims could be made about the products and what could not. We said these statements must be truthful and not misleading. All of these requirements are set out in the law and are to be administered by the regulatory agency, the FDA. And while the great, great majority of supplement products are used safely, there have been problems with some products. Some of these problems relate to manufacturing. Some relate to labeling. Critics of supplements attribute any problem which might crop up to the fact that the industry is ``unregulated.'' As I have proven, the industry is indeed regulated. It is just not regulated in the same fashion as drugs or devices. And it is worth highlighting that this is an industry largely comprised of men and women of good will, who want to provide the public with health enhancing products. Let me hasten to add that we all recognize there are bad actors in the supplement industry, those who break the law and mislead consumers. They should be subject of swift and sure punishment by the FDA and the Federal Trade Commission, FTC. Their products should be removed from the marketplace and the full weight of the law should be brought down on these bad actors. It is no secret that the FDA is a woefully underfunded agency, which will be the first to admit that its oversight of the dietary supplement industry is hampered by a lack of resources. For several years, Senator Harkin and I have worked to rectify that short-coming, and we are gratified that our Utah colleague, Senator Bennett, chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, has joined hands with us to infuse some badly needed resources into the FDA. For those who are new to this body, let me mention that in 1994, the Senate agreed not once, but twice, to approve DSHEA by unanimous consent. The House also passed this bill by UC. It was not controversial. Members recognized then, as they should now, that supplements are largely safe. But just to make doubly sure there was adequate regulation, we provided the FDA with an arsenal of tools to take action against problematic products. Then comes ephedra. I do not think it is a constructive exercise to rehash the history of ephedra. There were mistakes and problems all around in how this product's safety was evaluated and addressed. But something did stand out: one company had literally hundreds, if not thousands, of reports about products with this product, none of which were revealed to Federal authorities. There is no question in my mind that the too-long safety evaluation of ephedra would have been shortened considerably had we known earlier about these reports. Two years ago, I began discussing with those who are interested in dietary supplement regulation whether it would be wise to implement a system of mandatory adverse event reporting, AER, for those products. While I am reluctant to argue for greater government regulation, in this case it seemed to me a good case could be made that an AER system for supplements could complement the work we achieved with DSHEA and improve the government's ability to address the relatively few problems which arose. Senator Durbin and Senator Harkin were also having similar thoughts. We joined forces and after much study, discussion and negotiation, produced S. 3546. It may be surprising to many of our colleagues that Senators Hatch, Durbin, Harkin, Enzi and Kennedy stand together on this legislation--we come from very different perspectives on dietary supplement regulation. And while we are each very passionate about our views, we are united in a common goal: improving the public health. The premise for this bill is simple: mandating a system to provide the government with information about serious adverse events associated with the use of two types of FDA-regulated products--dietary supplements and over-the-counter drugs--provides Federal authorities with a better tool to respond to any problems which might occur. This is an important public health initiative, which at the same time safeguards access to dietary supplements and over-the-counter drugs. There is currently a voluntary reporting system for supplements and some OTC drugs our bill would replace that with a mandatory system. Senator Harkin and I have a longstanding interest in regulation of these products; stemming back to our work on DSHEA. Senator Durbin, as the former chair of the House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, is one of the most knowledgeable senators in this body when it comes to FDA matters. Our collaboration on this legislation, along with the distinguished chairman and ranking minority member of the committee of jurisdiction, the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, both of whom were integral to this process, has produced a bill which strikes the right balance between necessary regulation and over-regulation. This is how the new system will work: Manufacturers, packers or distributors of OTC drugs or dietary supplements marketed in the United States must provide to the FDA within 15 business days any reports of a serious adverse event associated with their products. Accompanying that report must be a copy of the label on or within the retail packaging of the supplement. The definition of serious event is proscribed within the legislation. It is either an event that results in a death, life-threatening experience, inpatient hospitalization, persistent or significant disability or incapacity, or congenital anomaly or birth defect... or it is an event that requires based on reasonable medical judgment a medical or surgical intervention to prevent one of the outcomes I have just listed. The bill requires that those reporting must, for one year, provide any new medical information related to the serious adverse event report. Again, that information must be submitted within 15 days. In addition, manufacturers, packers and distributors must keep for 6 years records of any adverse event associated with the product, even though there is no reporting requirement unless the event meets the definition of serious. For over-the-counter drugs, the definition of ``adverse event'' is a health-related event associated with the use of a nonprescription drug that is adverse, including: an event occurring from an overdose, whether accidental or intentional; an event occurring from abuse of the drug, or withdrawal from the drug; or any failure of pharmacological action. For dietary supplements, an ``adverse event'' means any health- related event associated with the use of a dietary supplement that is adverse. The reports will be submitted on the current MedWatch form, unless the Secretary of Health and Human Services chooses to modify that form at some point. The bill makes clear that State health officials may have access to the adverse event reports, but that the Federal reporting system would supersede any state reporting laws. As we met to develop this legislation, one thing we struggled with was the need to encourage responsible reporting in a way that manufacturers could implement. Some manufacturers indicated to us, for example, that they were not medical experts and could not determine in every case if a reporter's problem met the definition of ``serious'' contained in the bill. To address this, we allow manufacturers to contract with third parties to handle the collection of reports. The manufacturers, of course, would still be ultimately responsible for reporting. Another concern was making certain we appropriately defined the role of retailers, who are selling a range of products, some supplements, some OTCs, some not. We determined that retailers would not be considered reporting parties. If, however, a retailer contracts with manufacturers to distribute ``private label'' products, they may authorize the manufacturer or packer to submit reports, as long as the retailer directors to the manufacturer all reports it receives. We also wanted to allow the FDA the flexibility to manage this program. At its request, we made the program self-implementing. We also included a provision to allow the Secretary, after notice and comment from interested parties, to establish an exemption to the reporting requirements if there would be no adverse effect on public health. Finally, there are provisions in the bill to impose penalties for not reporting, not providing on the product label an address or phone number for reporting, and for providing a false report. The law will go into effect one year after the date of enactment. Before I close, I want to address some of the concerns that representatives of the dietary supplement industry have voiced with this legislation. First, some have suggested there is no need for this legislation from a public policy or a consumer safety perspective. I disagree. Many have unfairly criticized the industry over media reports that supplements are unsafe because there is no pre-market approval. While I can never support any system that requires premarket approval for supplements, I have become convinced that having a system in place to identify problems quickly can only enhance the authorities we gave the FDA with DSHEA. It is also good policy. As the industry matures, we need to separate out the good actors from the bad. This is one way to show that this industry is a respectable, mainstream industry. Other major industries, e.g. pharmaceuticals, devices, are subject to mandatory AER reporting. Supplements are only handled through the voluntary reporting system. And, I disagree with you those who avow there is no consumer safety benefit. Let's take an easy case--where there is a bad batch of a product. Enabling the FDA to know quickly there is a problem can help industry and the public. Other critics note that the FDA fails to pursue egregious violations of DSHEA. They question why this program will help. As I discussed earlier, Senator Harkin and I have been working to increase FDA's funding for responsible enforcement of DSHEA. I have also discussed this with the Commissioner-nominee, Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach, whom I expect we will confirm tomorrow. I listened carefully to one of my constituents who opposes this effort. He suggested that the FDA's voluntary system, the CAERS system, should be able to handle any reports of problems. Public health experts will agree that a voluntary system is not as good a sentinel as a mandatory system. In addition, those who report under the voluntary system are more likely to be physicians. Encouraging consumers to report to manufacturers through a phone number or address on the product's label will ensure a more thorough reporting system. Yet another concern I have heard is that this bill has a significant economic impact that has not been studied appropriately. One estimate I have heard is that it could cost tens of millions of dollars a year to industry and consumers. I have to say that these estimates do not seem to be supported by other industry representatives who already are instituting reporting systems of their own. During the drafting of this bill, we worked very hard to keep requirements to the minimum that would be necessary for a complete and full reporting of serious adverse events. In addition, I have heard a suggestions that a better alternative to this bill would be a 1-800 number that consumers can use to contact FDA directly to report complaints. I discussed this idea with my colleagues and the FDA and found little support for this idea. What this could do is shift onto FDA the majority of reports about product problems. In other words, FDA fears that consumers would start phoning the agency, rather than the manufacturer, to report complaints for things like broken bottles or tablets, or to answer questions about usage. It is easy to see how this could end up relieving manufacturers of some of their consumer-related responsibilities and shift that onto the FDA. Let me hasten to add that I understand the motivation behind these concerns. I will keep a close watch on this new program as it is implemented, and pledge to reexamine it should problems of implementation arise. In closing, I want to thank my colleagues for the spirit of collaboration which led to development of this legislation. In particular, I want to thank Senator Durbin for his leadership on this issue. While we may not have always agreed on every provision, we did forge a bill on which we can agree. His top-notch staffer, now a distinguished professor, Krista Donahue, worked with us every step of the way. Senator Harkin is a steadfast supporter of the dietary supplement industry, and his guidance undoubtedly made this bill a better product. We benefitted greatly from the counsel of his legislative director, Pam Smith, and before her, Peter Reinecke, his former chief of staff. Peter was instrumental in drafting DSHEA as well. Senator Enzi and Senator Kennedy, both long-time experts in food and drug law, have both been most generous in their time and in moving the process forward. Chairman Enzi's FDA expert, Amy Muhlberg, helped guide us through this process and was key in our success. Senator Kennedy's staffer, David Dorsey, once a top FDA, lawyer, was instrumental in the drafting and made countless invaluable suggestions. I will take this opportunity to thank my own staff--Patti DeLoatche, who always stood for common sense and reason during heated arguments, the elusive Bruce Artim, now a top staffer at Eli Lilley, and of course, Patricia Knight, who helped draft DSHEA with me as well. Finally, we couldn't have done it without Liz King and Stacey Kern- Scheerer in Legislative Counsel, who patiently produced the 21 drafts leading to the bill today. I must also note the groups that also support the bill--the Consumer's Union, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the Consumer Healthcare Products Association, the Natural Products Association, the Council for Responsible Nutrition, the American Herbal Products Association, and finally and most importantly, the Utah Natural Products Association. That these groups, not often united--at least on this subject--can rally around our bill today is a testament to good policy, good politics, and a surviving bipartisan spirit. It is my hope the Senate will give swift approval to this bipartisan measure and that the House will shortly thereafter do the same.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate has been able to come to an agreement and adopt H.R. 6143, the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Modernization Act of 2006. With this agreement, we finally reauthorize the only Federal program that helps low-income individuals living with HIV/AIDS. We tried to pass this critical legislation earlier this year, and even though this effort has enjoyed large bipartisan support in both Chambers, just a few Members prevented its passage. We worked to address their concerns in this compromise, and I am very glad to see the success of that endeavor. I would like to thank HELP Committee Chairman Enzi and Ranking Minority Member Kennedy, and others, for their tireless efforts throughout the reauthorization process. It has taken quite a long time to get here, and I commend everyone for their hard work. No one knows this more than Senator Kennedy, with whom I authored the original Ryan White CARE Act back in 1990, and I am very proud that our work has been able to help so many people. This bill may not be perfect, but it will continue a vital program that needs to be continued. Importantly, it will help stabilize the distribution of CARE Act funding in areas of the country where the AIDS epidemic is largest and also increase access to areas that have seen large numbers of new HIV infections. Many of us in the Senate recently received a letter from 99 AIDS organizations that endorse this reauthorization. These are national and local organizations that provide services to people living with HIV/ AIDS--they are the ones out there actually working with them, not sitting here in Washington, just talking about it. They have been involved throughout this entire reauthorization process--they have seen all the proposals and compromises--and they support this legislation. I thank these individuals for their participation in and contribution to the lengthy reauthorization process because the end product would not be effective without their input. I am especially thankful for the insight of Jennifer Brown, the State AIDS director in my home State of Utah, who helped me throughout negotiations to understand the possible effects of changes in the program. I would like to read a portion of the letter sent by the AIDS organizations, which I think reiterates a very important message: It is time to put aside regional differences and individual jurisdictional concerns, and act on behalf of all Americans who are living with this terrible disease. If Congress fails to act before adjournment, many of our citizens will lose life saving medical care, drug treatment and the support services necessary for them to lead healthy, productive lives. This message has been quite clear for some time. We received this message from the HIV/AIDS community, from our constituents, and from the President. Everyone has urged us here in the Senate to work in the best interests of the entire Nation and pass this reauthorization, and I am pleased that we have been able to do so.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I rise in support of the nomination of Dr. Robert Gates to become the next Secretary of Defense. I have had the opportunity to work with Dr. Gates on numerous occasions and must note that he was an excellent member of President George H.W. Bush's national security team during the first gulf war. This was highlighted by the fact he was nominated and confirmed to become Director of the Central Intelligence Agency shortly thereafter. Dr. Gates adds intelligence and diplomatic experience to a war that increasingly requires its leaders to go beyond tactical military expertise. Further, he is a pragmatist, who will work with allies and make necessary changes to our tactics and initiatives. I was impressed by Dr. Gates' candid assessment of the war in yesterday's confirmation hearing. He asserted, correctly in my view, that the United States is not winning the war, but we are not losing, either. The status quo is not acceptable, and that is why the President has tapped him to do whatever it takes to bring a successful end to our efforts in Iraq. He spoke openly about our failures and our successes so far, and he underscored what is at stake: If we are not successful, it could ignite ``a regional conflagration'' in the region. Dr. Gates understands that we need to refine not the objectives of our strategy but how we achieve our goals. The President and Dr. Gates remain committed to a course of action that achieves the goals best articulated by Dr. Zalmay Khalilzad, United States Ambassador to Iraq. He stated: ``Our goal is to enable Iraqis to develop a multi-ethnic, multi-sectarian representative democracy . . .'' that can fully meet is security obligations. I appreciate his comments that he is ``open to a wide range of ideas and proposals.'' I know that he is a leader who will review the options and advise the President on what he believes is the best way to proceed. Some of those innovative ideas will be found in the New Army Field Manual for Counterinsurgency Warfare. This is a vital document that will directly address what I have heard from many returning soldiers, that the Army's culture is one that emphasizes the use of firepower and conventional warfare rather stability and counterinsurgency operations. This new doctrine will immediately begin to transform our tactics and training, thereby being enormously helpful to our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Dr. Gates has my full support. These are trying times for our Nation. Our resolve is being tested. I know that Dr. Gates is the right man to advise the President on the means to achieve our goals and help the Iraqi people usher in a new era in that country. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to all the men and women in Washington County, UT, whose hard work and diligence have made and are making the Dinosaur Discovery Site at Johnson Farm such a success. These dedicated volunteers are helping to protect and display an asset of great value not only to Utah but to the world. The history of this discovery is fascinating. A few years ago, retired optometrist Dr. Sheldon Johnson was preparing his farm site for development, and as he turned over the earth, he discovered tracks of early residents of Washington County--very early residents, in fact. Dinosaur tracks dating back to the Jurassic period of history were uncovered. They are being preserved and are bringing economic and historic benefit to St. George, Washington County, UT, and the Nation. To date, visitors from 68 nations and all 50 States have visited the site. I want to recognize and thank Dr. Sheldon and LaVerna Johnson who discovered the tracks and then donated the land to preserve this heritage. The Johnsons have made it all possible. Linda Sappington, Washington County volunteer coordinator, aided by volunteer supervisors Kae Crabtree and Carole Chadwick, began in February 2000 to bring together individuals who cared about the tracks and who were willing to give of themselves to help preserve the find. I also want to recognize and thank Mayor Dan McArthur, the city of St. George, Washington County, and the Utah State Legislature for their efforts. Past and present museum staff Theresa Walker, Andrew R.C. Milner, Janice Evans, Bob Kroff, and Anneli Segura have put forth countless hours of work and dedication to enhance, preserve, and share this prehistoric treasure with the community and future generations. In addition to the Johnsons, I recognize Suzanne Allen; Dr. Andrew Barnum; Herb Basso; Dr. David Borris; Alan Crooks; Lyle Drake; Kenneth Hinton; Sharon Isom; unfortunately, now deceased; LaRee Jones; Dr. James Kirkland; Dr. Martin Lockley; Dan Matheson; the late Layton Ott, Kathy Smith; Darcy Stewart; Marshall Topham; Gary Watts; John Willie. They are all members of the DinosaurAh!torium, a 501 (c) 3 foundation responsible for funding the project. Advisory members include James Hansen, Dr. Jerry Harris, Gary Sanders, with Cliff Green and Robert Milner, resident artist. I also thank Paul Jensen and Jeff Chapman for allowing access to their properties for the collection, preservation, and storage of fossils. Finally, today, I specifically want to recognize and thank the many volunteers who have made and are making the Dinosaur Discovery Site at Johnson Farm possible. Many of these wonderful individuals have been contributing their time and energy for more than 5 years. A tremendous thank you to the Dinosaur Discovery Site at Johnson Farm volunteers. I commend each of them. Mr. President, 2000 volunteers include Chad Anderson; T.R. Thompson; Andrew Milner; Donnette Hatch; June Barton; Rae Crabtree; Nina Schwarze; Karen Rammell; Lee Rammell; Doug Bergen; Richard Gardner; Ryan Babcock; Dick Groves; Robert Pritchitt; Klein Adams; Rafael Acosta; Ryan Oburn; Hal Arrowood; Jason Skeen; Clyde Terry; Vilma Terry; Bev Middleton; Chris Walker; Steve Smith; Helen Salvatore; Cindy Greco; Scott Broen; Jereen Hyde; Stevan Duke; Barbara Duke; Stacie Wilson; Constance Sherwood; Jacob Hendriks; Josephine Kellejan; Ruth Rote; John Rote; Dustin Rooks; and Brett Bronson. Mr. President, 2001 volunteers: Jim Burns; Barbara Hatch; Peggy Wardle; Carol Duley; Gary Watts; Ember Rodgers; Kirk Rehfield; Bill Reynolds; Theresa Walker; Cassandra Lee; Lynnie Rolfe; Joel Campbell; Ryan Losee; Chris Gibson; Kyle Fraley; John Shaw; Steve Anderson; Drew Gubler; Shelton Heath; Paula Ryan; Bernie Yeager; Jill Conner; Candace Crane; Nichole Burton; Austin Carter; Dusty Ott; Kirk Richfield; Nate Leifson; Ron Kittelsrud; Maren Christensen; Ben Joe Markland; Emily Weidauer; Holly Hult; Carol Killian; Scott Woodworth; Brian Barrett; Warren Hoskings; Kevin Wiederhold; Autumn Cluff; and Lynn White. Mr. President, 2002 volunteers: Rudy Johnson; Clay Hopkins; Jeff Lingwall; Debbie Woodard; Joyce Proctor; Britton Puki; Joe Borden; Melvin Done; Melanie Hackmann; Kathryn VanRoosendaal; Doug Griffiths; Charlotte Rice; Angie Hendrickson; Chad Tipton; Laurie Barnholt; Aaron Heaton; Kathy Hancock; Carson Blickenstaff; Glen Steenbuck; Bev Rhodes; Brigham Mellor; Kami Cox; Kathy Cox; Russ Childs; Delbert Vern Chadwick; Beverly Kirk; Matthew Wilkinson; Monte Johnson; Darrell Wade; Terri Wade; Sheena Gawer; Barbara Smith; Ken Parkes; Darienne McNamara; Kat Duttadway; Kylea Christensen; Jacob Cox; Jason Rabbitt; Don Triptow; Bill Yensen; Arlene Yensen; Les Townsend; Barbara Townsend; Al Abrams; John Donnell; JoAnn Abrams; Arlea Howell; David Kitselmer; Steve Chilow; Cathy Freeman; Duane Freeman; Steven Bart; Elizabeth Nipperus; Misti Rooks; Kathleen Milner; Robert Milner; Shirley White; Robert White; and Guy Pace. Mr. President, 2003 volunteers: Janece Tolber; George D'Apuzzo; Carl Berg, Laurie Berg; Myron Hatch; David Slauf; Taylor Birthisel; Linda Baldazzi; Bob Baldazzi; Sally Stephenson; Steve Stephenson; Roger Head; Bonnie Head; Jacqueline Dubois; Jerry Schwantz; Shirley Surfas; Pat Vanderwark; Keith Vanderwark; Joan Triptow; Jay Guymon; Kolby Andersen; Kelly Bringhurst; Marc Raines; Lisa Raines; Molly Swift; Chester Pierce; Dennis Broad; George Muller; Rena Jensen; Roger Taylor; Maynie Begeman; Robert Begeman; Val Humble; Paul Wiener; Frances Wiener; Anne Bredon; Gail Taylor; Mike Llewellyn; Curtis Halliday; Dale Peck; Arlea Howell; Shannon Ducrest; Anne Basham; Brooke Ranter; Melissa Thomson; Michelle Bower; Jana Hightower; Brian Schlegel; Danny Diamond; Dallas Jones; Andrew Neff; Lindsay Connelley-Brown; and Linda Hoernke. Mr. President, 2004 volunteers: Carla Ritter; Sheila Hughes; Don Hughes; Tracey O'Kelly; Jessica Williams; and Lillian Zielke. Mr. President, 2005 volunteers: Paula Welker; Connie Welker; Kameron Evans; Dick Vos; Roberta Champlin; Wally Champlin; Richard Berger; Justin Moosman; Christine Blum; Lamont Reynolds; Judy D'Apuzzo; Louise Snyder; Arleen Stillman; Lorene Reynolds; Freddie Arrighi; Shelly Robinson; Sarah Spears; Judy Warren; and Janice Evans. To these dedicated volunteers and to all of those who will continue to volunteer, I say thank you

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Water and Power Infrastructure Security bill, S. 4079. This legislation will amend the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978 to authorize improvement for the security of dams and other facilities. On September 11, 2001, America's view of national security changed. The threat of terrorist attacks on our own soil became a reality for each and every one of us. This possibility forced Americans to rethink security in many different sectors including the need to secure infrastructure such as our Nation's dams. As a result of the 9/11 attacks, the Bureau of Reclamation set up site security programs, implemented more complex surveillance systems, erected protection barriers, and devoted substantial funding in the process. Initially, the Bureau covered these added security costs, recognizing that water and power infrastructure benefits the public generally. This was a pattern established after the Pearl Harbor attacks when the Federal Government covered the added security costs at these public facilities. Indeed, all Americans benefit from stable power sources and improved flood control. Other universal benefits of public dams include recreation, water supply, and fish and wildlife. However, in recent years the Bureau has begun to shift these costs onto the energy rate payers probably due to pressure from Office of Management and Budget. Thus, hard working American families, many of whom are family farmers with limited incomes, are forced to shoulder this large financial burden. Shifting the burden of national security to family farmers is patently unfair. Our bill amends the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act to require to clarify that consumers of public power must contribute to site security at Federal dams. However, the bill would limit their contribution to 15 percent of total security costs. This provides a more equitable division of dam security costs between local and national beneficiaries. The bill also would require the Secretary of the Interior to involve project beneficiaries in the planning and building of site security. Finally, the bill requires the Bureau to provide Congress a five-year plan on dam security and an annual report of its expenditures. There is no question we need to protect our critical infrastructure. It seems logical that the costs of these national and multi-purpose facilities should not be imposed on a concentrated group of energy consumers. However, customers who depend on the Bureau of Reclamation facilities are willing to pay their fair allotment of the security reflected in this legislation. I believe this bill strikes a good balance between reasonable costs and a legitimate amount of transparency. Ultimately, its about working together as Americans to protect our critical infrastructure and provide a fair cost distribution system. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Water and Power Infrastructure Security bill, S. 4079. This legislation will amend the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978 to authorize improvement for the security of dams and other facilities. On September 11, 2001, America's view of national security changed. The threat of terrorist attacks on our own soil became a reality for each and every one of us. This possibility forced Americans to rethink security in many different sectors including the need to secure infrastructure such as our Nation's dams. As a result of the 9/11 attacks, the Bureau of Reclamation set up site security programs, implemented more complex surveillance systems, erected protection barriers, and devoted substantial funding in the process. Initially, the Bureau covered these added security costs, recognizing that water and power infrastructure benefits the public generally. This was a pattern established after the Pearl Harbor attacks when the Federal Government covered the added security costs at these public facilities. Indeed, all Americans benefit from stable power sources and improved flood control. Other universal benefits of public dams include recreation, water supply, and fish and wildlife. However, in recent years the Bureau has begun to shift these costs onto the energy rate payers probably due to pressure from Office of Management and Budget. Thus, hard working American families, many of whom are family farmers with limited incomes, are forced to shoulder this large financial burden. Shifting the burden of national security to family farmers is patently unfair. Our bill amends the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act to require to clarify that consumers of public power must contribute to site security at Federal dams. However, the bill would limit their contribution to 15 percent of total security costs. This provides a more equitable division of dam security costs between local and national beneficiaries. The bill also would require the Secretary of the Interior to involve project beneficiaries in the planning and building of site security. Finally, the bill requires the Bureau to provide Congress a five-year plan on dam security and an annual report of its expenditures. There is no question we need to protect our critical infrastructure. It seems logical that the costs of these national and multi-purpose facilities should not be imposed on a concentrated group of energy consumers. However, customers who depend on the Bureau of Reclamation facilities are willing to pay their fair allotment of the security reflected in this legislation. I believe this bill strikes a good balance between reasonable costs and a legitimate amount of transparency. Ultimately, its about working together as Americans to protect our critical infrastructure and provide a fair cost distribution system. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a dynamic man, my constituent, a loyal friend, loving husband and father, and a highly successful businessman--Mr. Earl Holding. Earl is reaching a wonderful milestone, his 80th birthday, and I couldn't let this occasion pass without honoring him for the good he has accomplished throughout his life. Earl has accomplished feats in business in Utah and throughout our Nation that few have ever achieved. He has made a lasting imprint on many industries including petroleum, ranching, and the travel and hotel industry. His work ethic, and inspirational leadership has literally transformed the business landscape of our State. His acumen and tenacity are legendary and are admired by many. Earl has not been alone in his success. In 1949, Earl married his business partner, Carol Orme, and together they embarked on a remarkable life journey. These two humble individuals worked together to forge something real and lasting in all aspects of their lives. A story is told of their early years that I believe poignantly displays the dedication they both have always demonstrated. Their wedding night at the Temple Square Hotel in Salt Lake City reached an early end when they left at 5:00 a.m. to take their irrigation turn at their orchard. In 1952, Earl and Carol accepted the responsibility of managing and investing in Little America, a service station and motel located in a remote area of western Wyoming. At the time Little America was unprofitable. In just 2 short years, through hard work, perseverance, and tenacity, the Holdings were able to turn Little America into the largest and highest volume service station in the United States. From this beginning, the Little America Hotels and hotel properties led by Earl have became a favorite place for thousands of travelers throughout the Western United States. In fact, in preparation for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games, Earl personally undertook a mission to build the first five-star hotel in Utah. His dream became a reality with the development and building of the Grand America Hotel in Salt Lake City. This property is truly ``grand.'' It is beautiful from the top to the bottom and is a wonderful testament to Earl's dedication to quality and service. Earl's contribution to the travel and recreation arena doesn't end with his hotel properties. He also owns and manages the Snowbasin ski area in Utah, the home of several Olympic races during the 2002 Olympic Winter Games; and the Sun Valley resort in Idaho, repeatedly named the No. 1 ski resort in America. Earl's business holdings also include a large petroleum portfolio anchored by his purchase of Sinclair Oil in 1976. His innovative leadership in the petroleum industry has enabled Sinclair Oil to grow and is now one of the largest privately held, full integrated oil companies in America. His leadership and dedication have been recognized many times through numerous awards and honors, including an honorary doctorate degree from the University of Utah, the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars of the Smithsonian Institution's Award for Corporate Citizenship, appointments to the U.S. Postal Commission and the Salt Lake Olympic Organizing Committee, and as president of the American Independent Refiners Association. Another hallmark of Earl's life has been his commitment to the thousands of employees he has hired throughout the years. Each Christmas season, Earl and Carol take the time to express personally their gratitude to each one of their 7,000 employees. A famous orator, John Wesley, once stated: ``Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as ever you can.'' This describes Earl Holding. His good works accomplished through 80 years will be acknowledged and felt for generations to come. He is a living example of courage, commitment, and dedication. Hard work has never deterred him, and integrity has always been his guiding beacon. Mr. President, I consider it a great honor to call Earl Holding a friend. He is an exceptional human being whose footprints will last for years. His success has not been achieved with one single magnificent accomplishment but through a journey of good work and exceptional leadership. I pay tribute to him today and hope my colleagues will join with me in wishing him a very happy 80th birthday!

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in support of legislation to reauthorize the Older Americans Act. I strongly support this bill and want to acknowledge the hard work of the chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension, HELP, Committee, Senator Mike Enzi, and the committee's ranking minority member, Senator Ted Kennedy. In addition, I want to thank Senator Mike DeWine, the chairman of the Retirement Security and Aging Subcommittee and its ranking minority member, Senator Barbara Mikulski. All four of my colleagues and their wonderful staffs, Lauren Fuller, Kori Forster, Lindsay Morris, Kara Marchione, Ellen-Marie Whelan, and Keysha Brooks-Coley did a tremendous job in producing a good bill that will make a difference in the lives of older Americans across the nation. Yesterday, this legislation passed the House of Representatives unanimously and it is my hope that the Senate will follow suit. This legislation improves the functions of the Administration on Aging, provides grants for State and community programs on aging, and creates training and research programs to assist seniors in maintaining their independence. In addition, the conference report includes job training for seniors through the community service employment program and grants for supportive and nutrition programs for older Native Americans. There are two provisions of this measure that I would like to highlight. First, the conference report includes provisions from legislation that I introduced earlier this Congress with my colleague, Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, S. 2010, the Elder Justice Act. More specifically, this legislation includes a provision which authorizes the Assistant Secretary on Aging to designate an individual to be responsible for elder abuse and prevention services, and to coordinate Federal elder justice activities. This includes developing a long-term plan for the creation and implementation of a coordinated, multidisciplinary elder justice system. I am so proud to have provisions from the Elder Justice Act included in this legislation. With over 77 million baby boomers retiring in the next three decades, we have no choice but to acknowledge something must be done to combat elder abuse. Passage of this bill is an important step in the right direction. I also am pleased that this legislation includes a sense of the Congress recognizing the contribution of nutrition to the health of older Americans. This sense of the Congress states that while diet is the preferred source of nutrition, evidence suggests that the use of a single daily multivitamin-mineral supplement may be an effective way to address nutritional gaps that exist among the elderly population, especially the poor. I strongly believe that by encouraging seniors to take daily multivitamin-mineral supplements, we are only helping them to live longer, healthier lives and I am hopeful that senior meals programs will decide to provide supplements to those who participate. There is a long history of evidence indicating that multivitamins and minerals can maintain and improve health and are safe. While I wish this provision had been more than a sense of the Congress, I appreciate the work of the conferees to highlight the necessity of good nutrition and supplementation. Once again, I want to congratulate my colleagues on a job well done. Older Americans across the country appreciate your efforts.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank my chairman. I am grateful to be with him on this bill. I am one of the prime authors of the Ryan White Act. I stood here on the floor, with Mrs. White sitting up in the gallery, and recognized it and named it the Ryan White bill. I rise again to support the effort to call up and immediately adopt S. 2823, the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Modernization Act. I thank our chairman and others who worked so hard on this bill to bring it here. It makes no sense that this product of bipartisan, bicameral effort should be held up at the eleventh hour by Members representing only two States--three at one time, but at least the two Senators from California backed off and now realize that they are not doing what is right here. Given that the theme of this bipartisan, bicameral effort was to craft something that would help even out the playing field for all U.S. States and territories, it makes even less sense for these holds to be placed on behalf of States that currently enjoy substantially generous funding. In some areas of these States, the funding is so generous that we have heard reports of Ryan White dollars being spent on dog-walking services, haircuts, candlelight dinners, and four-star hotels. I, for one, am pretty fed up with it, and to have four liberal Senators on this floor holding this up is just outrageous. Furthermore, some States carry over millions of unspent dollars every year, and some continue to receive funding for people who are no longer living. This is happening while people die in areas where the epidemic is newer because under the current Ryan White structure, their location dictates that they should receive less money for care. This reauthorization bill would fix that broken program structure. Let me make it clear that my home State of Utah does not stand to gain large increases in funding. Our State AIDS director understands and supports the need for equity within the program. Due to efficient administration of the Ryan White program, Utah is able to manage its funding so that it can--just barely--avoid an ADAP waiting list for pharmaceuticals. Utah can do this even though it receives an average of $1,315 less per patient in Ryan White funding than does New York, $1,330 per patient less than New Jersey, and $843 per patient less than California, just to mention three States. The New York and New Jersey Senators are holding up this bill. I could go on and on about this because there are really only about five States that receive less funding per patient than Utah. But I am not going to do that, and that is precisely my point. My point is that this should not be about who gets the most money. I find it disconcerting that I have to point out, once again, that this program assists people who could die if it is not reauthorized this week. It is as simple as that. I have received numerous letters from the HIV/AIDS community urging that the Senate reauthorize this program before it adjourns this week. I also remind my colleagues that President Bush has charged Congress with reauthorizing this program. Last night, the House passed H.R. 6143, the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Modernization Act of 2006, by a vote of 325 to 98. The vote total includes over half of the House Democrats voting for this bill. What happened to the other half? They are always out here talking about compassion and talking about reason and talking about how good they are to the poor. Here is a chance to do some good for the poor. We worked hard to get everything together on this bill, and we have four liberal Senators holding it up. It is ridiculous. I am the coauthor of three of the AIDS bills. I remember when we brought the first one to the floor. It was a big battle. I was the conservative who stood up for it. We finally won, and we won on all three of them. Like I say, I named this bill the Ryan White bill right here on the floor of the Senate. As I mentioned, the House passed its bill last night with overwhelming bipartisan support. I implore my colleagues in the Senate to do the same, to work in the best interest of the entire Nation and pass this reauthorization. I am really upset about it, and I think everybody ought to be upset about it. Sometimes we get extreme worrying about who gets the money and who gets this and who gets that. New York and New Jersey are not being mistreated here. Some States will always think they are not getting enough money no matter what we do here. We have to work on this. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I thank my colleagues for their forbearance.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, with the President's recent declassification of the Key Judgments of the April National Intelligence Estimate, NIE, on Terrorism, the American public can get from the Democrats an object lesson in perfect irony. For years, the Democrats have accused the Bush administration of cherry-picking intelligence to lead the country to war in Iraq. Yet here they are cherry-picking intelligence out of this report to make a media circus right before the upcoming election. First, let me define what I mean by ``cherry-picking.'' This refers to a selective use of intelligence to make a politically persuasive argument. It is a deliberate misrepresentation of a larger, often ambiguous body of intelligence reporting. From my perspective, the Democrats' politicization of our Nation's intelligence is not a pretty picture. NIEs are the top-line product of the entire intelligence community. They are supposed to be regarded as serious, substantive, consensus analysis for top policymakers. NIEs are one of thousands of intelligence products we review on the Intelligence Committee. I am on that committee, first ranking on that committee on the Republican side. Please recall that the Democrats accused the Republicans and the Bush administration of cherry-picking intelligence prior to the Iraq war. The Senate Select Intelligence Committee's comprehensive review of the prewar Iraq intelligence was concluded in July 2004 and made available to the public in a detailed 500-page report. It was unanimously supported by Democrats and Republicans of the committee. It was thorough. It pulled no punches. It was highly critical of the systematic failure of our intelligence on Iraq. Our faulty intelligence, as the world knows, was similar to the faulty intelligence of all of our allied partners. The committee's report clearly shows, however, that there was no cherry-picking of intelligence because nearly all of the intelligence was bad, and there was no finished intelligence that contradicted the faulty conclusions our intelligence community reached before the war. Recall also that the Democrats have regularly charged the Bush administration with politicizing intelligence, implying that intelligence was manipulated for political reasons. For example, they suggested that Vice President Cheney's visit to the Central Intelligence Agency prior to the Iraq war pressured analysts toward particular conclusions. The July 2004 report, which was based on hundreds of hours of interviews with all these analysts, concluded that no such politicization took place. The intelligence was lousy, but it wasn't cooked. Now comes the latest little circus by many Democrats and many in the media in a prepared campaign to manipulate a fragment of a leaked classified document. Putting aside for the moment the underlying question of whether the Iraq war made us safer--a point I will address shortly--the Democrats claimed over the weekend and earlier this week that the NIE proved their point that the Iraq war had made the terrorists stronger and therefore the United States more vulnerable. Here are the sentences they quoted as proof: We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere. The Iraq conflict has become the cause celebre for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. This is the sentence the Democrats quoted as proof of their critique of the Iraq war. Let us be honest: The sentence is true. But let us be even more honest--and this is distinctly where the Democrats are being deliberately dishonest--the sentence is out of context and ignores other parts of the NIE, such as the very next sentence, which reads: Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight. Can we be honest and admit this sentence is true as well? And can we recognize that the only way we prove this second sentence is to sustain the fight in Iraq until we have achieved security and stability that can be maintained by the Iraqis themselves? This has been a classic exercise in spin, cherry-picking, and politicization of intelligence, and it stinks. The Democrats spun this story all weekend, knowing that responsible members of the Bush administration and the Republican Congress could not respond without participating in leaking a classified document. The Democrats cherry-picked sentences and deliberately used them out of context. They conducted this exercise for purposes of supporting their antiwar agenda, in an example of egregious politicization of this Nation's valuable intelligence process. As my colleague on the Intelligence Committee, Senator Bond, has said: It is time to hit the baloney button. We are conducting a war different from any in our Nation's history. One of the unique aspects of this war against global terrorism is the unprecedented reliance we place on our intelligence community. As a member of the Intelligence Committee, I am dedicated to supporting this function of our foreign policy, even when that has included criticizing systematic failures in collection and analysis, as we did with our phase I report released in July 2004. Every day, we see examples that the intelligence community's capabilities have improved as a result of the lesson learned from that review. Republicans like myself have criticized the intelligence community with the focus on improving it and have done our best to support it in its vital function in this war in which we are engaged today. As we have just seen, Democrats cook this Nation's intelligence, callously undermining its importance and function. To win a war, you need will, but you also need function. ``Is the U.S. safer as a result of our invasion of Iraq?'' is a central policy question, one that could have been more honestly addressed without an exercise in cherry-picking and cooking intelligence. I always thought that if you have to address an argument dishonestly, your position must be weak. Are we safer as a result of our invasion of Iraq? There is the assessment of the war situation now and the strategic answer. The NIE is correct that the Iraq war has opened the battlefront for the global jihadists in Iraq. We knew this before the NIE was published last April, of course. And we read that last April. I have seen no Bush administration official deny this. In fact, General Abizaid in Washington last week was blunt about this: We are battling these jihadists in Iraq today. And when we defeat them, that defeat will be felt throughout the global jihadist movement. If we follow some Democrats' advice to withdraw, we will give the global jihad movement another Somalia. Our withdrawal from Somalia in 1993 gave bin Laden his first propaganda point. He concluded that the Americans are weak, vulnerable, and easily defeated. As far as strategic assessment, I believe the Iraq war has made us safer. On September 20, 2001, the President addressed the Congress, the Nation, and the world in his first major policy address after the attacks of September 11. He articulated a new antiterrorism policy, one that had not existed up to that point, one that had not been put in place under the previous administration. From that point on, President Bush said we would go after all terror groups within global reach; we would no longer wait for them to attack us. The President put all nations that harbor terrorist organizations on notice. Iraq was one of these nations. Iraq did not support al-Qaida and was not involved in 9/11, but it had a decades' long history of supporting terrorists, a view no one in Congress disputed. The rationale for Iraq has been criticized and exposed, but one fact remains clear: When we took down the Saddam regime, from that day on, no regime in the world could conclude that they could harbor terrorists without risking consequences. By invading and deposing Saddam, we demonstrated to the world our resolve. Had we not done so, based on the empty threats and actions of previous administrations, nations entertaining terror links could doubt our resolve. From the day we acted to take down Saddam, we showed the world our intent behind our words. Today, no Nation can doubt this. And in this very real sense, America has been made safer. We need to finish the job in Iraq. As I have said, that requires the functions of our foreign policy apparatus to be fully supported--diplomacy, military, economic, and intelligence. I am dedicated to providing this support, positively but not uncritically. We also need will. After last weekend's episode of cooking intelligence for political purposes, I question what such an exercise is intended to achieve when it comes to maintaining our will.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Religious Liberty and Charitable Donation Clarification Act of 2006. My distinguished colleague from Illinois, Senator Obama, and I have worked diligently and quickly to clarify the treatment of charitable contributions in chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code. As many of my colleagues know, a bankruptcy court in the Northern District of New York recently upheld an objection to the confirmation of a chapter 13 plan due to the inclusion of a charitable contribution in the disposable income calculation. Shortly after learning of the decision I, along with Senators Grassley and Sessions, sent a letter to the Department of Justice expressing my concern about the treatment of charitable contributions in the Chapter 13 context, and while I believe the Department of Justice will affirm its policy of allowing charitable contributions that are consistent with the Religious Liberty and Charitable Contribution Protection Act of 1998, I do not want the religious practices and beliefs of individuals subject to the vagaries of judicial interpretation. As a whole, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, BAPCPA, was--and still is--a good bill. However, like many large bills, it was not perfect. As a key architect of the recent bankruptcy reforms, I can say without equivocation that Congress intended to preserve the Religious Liberty and Charitable Contribution Protection Act of 1998 in BAPCPA. Unfortunately, the Northern District of New York thought differently. I do not like impromptu legislative responses to judicial decisions, particularly ones with limited precedential value; however, I believe that Senator Obama and I have put together a narrowly-tailored clarification that leaves little doubt about Congress' intent when it passed BAPCPA. I want to make it very clear that this bill does not, in any way, affirm the Northern District of New York Bankruptcy Court's reasoning in In re Diagostino. I agree with the Department of Justice's position that charitable contributions consistent with the requirements of the 1998 Religious Liberty and Charitable Contribution Protection Act should be allowed under the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. The bill that Senator Obama and I introduced is meant to simply clarify existing law in furtherance of the Department's interpretation and Congress's intent.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation designed to make the tax laws more fair for America's primary and secondary school teachers. Our public school teachers are some of the unheralded heroes of our society. These women and men dedicate their careers to educating the young people of America. School teachers labor in often difficult and even dangerous circumstances. In most places, including in my home State of Utah, the salary of the average public school teacher is significantly below the national average. A historic turnover is taking place in the teaching profession. While student enrollments are rising rapidly, more than a million veteran teachers are nearing retirement. Experts predict that overall we will need more than two million new teachers in the next decade. This teacher recruitment problem has reached crisis proportions in some urban and rural areas. The shortage is most acute in high-need subject areas such as math, science, and technology. Retaining qualified teachers in the schools is only part of the puzzle. Attracting new teachers in math, science, and technology is another. It is clear that our teacher recruitment problem represents one the biggest challenges America faces as we contemplate how we are going to prepare the next generation to take their places in our society and in our economy. Unfortunately, these problems of retention and recruitment of public school teachers are exacerbated by the unfair tax treatment these professionals currently receive under our tax law. Specifically, teachers find themselves greatly disadvantaged by the lack of deductibility of professional development expenses and of the out-of- pocket costs of classroom materials that practically all teachers find themselves supplying. Let me explain. As many other professionals, most elementary and secondary school teachers regularly incur expenses to keep themselves current in their field of knowledge. These include subscriptions to journals and other periodicals as well as the cost of courses and seminars designed to improve their knowledge or teaching skills. These expenditures are necessary to keep our teachers up to date on the latest ideas, techniques, and trends so that they can provide our children with the best education possible. Furthermore, almost all teachers find themselves providing basic classroom materials for their students. Because of tight education budgets, most schools do not provide 100 percent of the material teachers need to adequately present their lessons. As a result, dedicated teachers incur personal expenses for copies, art supplies, books, puzzles and games, paper, pencils, and countless other needs. If not for the willingness of teachers to purchase these supplies themselves, many students would simply go without needed materials. I realize that employees in many fields of endeavor incur expenses for professional development and out-of-pocket expenses. In many cases, however, these costs are fully reimbursed by the employer. This is seldom the case with school teachers. Other professionals who are self- employed are able to fully deduct these types of expenses. Under the current tax law, unreimbursed employee expenses are deductible generally, but only as miscellaneous itemized deductions. However, there are two practical hurdles that effectively make these expenses non-deductible for most teachers. The first hurdle is that the total amount of a taxpayer's deductible miscellaneous deductions must exceed two percent of adjusted gross income before they begin to be deductible. The second hurdle is that the amount in excess of the two percent floor, if any, combined with all other deductions of the taxpayer, must exceed the standard deduction before the teacher can itemize. Only about a third of taxpayers have enough deductions to itemize. The unfortunate effect of these two limitations is that, as a practical matter, only a small proportion of teachers are able to deduct their professional development and out-of-pocket supplies expenses. Let me illustrate this unfair situation with an example. Let us consider the case of a fifth-year high school English teacher in Utah whom I will call Alice White Head. Alice is single and earns $48,000 per year. Last year she incurred $1,050 for a course she took over the summer to increase her knowledge of English literature. She also spent $450 for classroom supplies out of her own pocket. She was not reimbursed for either of these expenses, which totaled $1,500, by her school district. Under current law, Alice's expenditures are deductible, subject to the limitations I mentioned. The first limitation is that her expenses must exceed two percent of her income before they begin to be deductible. Two percent of $48,000 is $960. Thus, only $540 of her $1,500 total expenses is deductible, that portion that exceeds $960. As a single taxpayer, Alice's standard deduction for 2006 is $5,150. Her total itemized deductions, including the $540 in miscellaneous deductions for her professional expenses and out-of-pocket classroom supplies, fall short of the standard deduction threshold. Therefore, not even the $540 of the original $1,500 in professional development expenses and out-of-pocket costs are deductible for Alice. What the first limitation did not block, the second one did, and Alice gets no deduction at all under the current law. The way I see it, this situation is just not fair. Also, the tax treatment of teacher's expenses certainly does not help solve our teacher retention and recruitment problems. To help alleviate this long-standing problem, five years ago I introduced the Teacher Equity for School Teachers Act of 2001. This legislation would have provided an unlimited tax deduction for the out- of-pocket expenses of school teachers for classroom supplies and other needed materials to help a teacher do his or her job. The bill would have also allowed teachers to take a deduction for their professional development expenses. Rather than being available only for those who are able to itemize their deductions, this bill would have made these expenses ``above-the- line'' deductions, meaning they would be deductible whether or not the teacher itemized on their tax return. Unfortunately, only a part of this bill was enacted. The 2001 tax bill included an above-the-line deduction for $250 for the costs of classroom expenses. While this was a great step in the right direction, it did not go nearly far enough. Moreover, the provision has now expired, and it is not clear when Congress is going to extend it. The bill I am introducing today would do three things. First, it would reinstate the above-the-line deduction for teachers' out-of- pocket expenses for classroom supplies, make it permanent, and remove the $250 cap. Second, it would provide an unlimited deduction for the professional development expenses for school teachers. Finally, to assist in the recruitment of teachers in the most needed fields, it would provide an unlimited deduction for the cost of professionals in the fields of math, science, and technology to certify to become public school teachers. Under my bill, the Alice of my example would be allowed to deduct all $1,500 of her professional development and classroom supplies expenses, whether she itemized or not. This would help provide tax equity, and a measure of much-needed tax relief for an underpaid professional. It would also help retain current public school teachers and attract new ones to this vital field. Some might argue that such a generous deduction would be giving teachers preferential treatment. I disagree. Most organizations provide training for their employees that is fully deductible to the organization and non-taxable to the employee. Yet public teachers, who are some of the most important professionals in our society, are left to foot the bill for these needed costs on their own. Also, office supplies and instructional materials are fully deductible to businesses. Should not teachers who provide these similar materials for their classrooms be afforded the same tax treatment? Others may question the wisdom of my bill granting an unlimited tax deduction. ``Why not place a limit or a cap on the amount that may be deducted?'' some might ask. Again, I respectfully disagree with such critics. It is important to keep in mind the differences between a tax deduction and a tax credit. My bill calls for tax deductions, which reduce the amount of income that is subject to tax, and not for a credit, which is a dollar-for-dollar reduction in the amount of tax that is due. With a tax deduction, a public school teacher is not receiving a cash subsidy or reimbursement for his or her expenses. Rather, he or she is merely obtaining a reduction in the amount of income that is taxed. Thus, the most benefit the teacher would receive under my bill would be a 35 percent reduction in the cost of the professional development, supplies, or certification expenses. This means that the teacher is still responsible for paying for the biggest portion of these costs. I do not believe that our public school teachers will abuse such an unlimited deduction. They will use their common sense and they will spend the appropriate amounts for their expenses. Support for mathematics and science education at all levels is necessary to improve the global competitiveness of the United States in science and energy technology. I endorse the efforts of my some of my colleagues to encourage more of our best and brightest students choose these fields of study. Support for qualified STEM teachers (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) is equally important. If we are successful in increasing the supply for STEM students, we will need to increase the supply of STEM teachers. This bill will provide incentives for these professionals to enter the teaching profession by allowing expenses in connection with teacher certification to be fully deductible, above-the-line, the same as the professional development and supplies expenses of teaching professionals. Mr. President, this bill would provide modest tax equity for teachers who, for too long, have been footing the bill for improving the quality of teaching by themselves. It is time that Congress recognized this unfairness and corrected it. I thank the Senate for the opportunity to address this issue today, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the REIT Investment Diversification and Empowerment Act of 2006 (RIDEA). This legislation would make a handful of relatively minor, but nonetheless important, changes to the tax rules governing Real Estate Investment Trusts to permit REITs to better meet the challenges of evolving market conditions and opportunities. As most of my colleagues know, Real Estate Investment Trusts are companies that own, and in most cases, operate income-producing real estate. Congress created REITs in 1960 to give everyone the ability to invest in large-scale commercial properties in a very liquid way. The REIT industry has grown dramatically in size and importance to the U.S. economy since then, and in the last ten years in particular. While the tax laws governing REITs are very good, from time to time they need to be modified to keep pace with the changes in the marketplace and in our economy. I am pleased to have supported, along with many of my colleagues, several tax bills that have been enacted in the past decade or so to modernize the tax treatment of Real Estate Investment Trusts. Federal tax law requires that REITs meet specific tests regarding the composition of their gross income and assets. For example, 95 percent of their annual gross income must be from specified sources such as dividends, interests and rents, and 75 percent of their gross income must be from real estate-related sources. Similarly, at the end of each calendar quarter, 75 percent of a REIT's assets must consist of specified ``real estate'' assets. Consequently, REITs must derive a majority of their gross income from commercial real estate. Failure to meet these tests can result in loss of REIT status, although with the enactment of the REIT Improvement Act in 2004, it may be possible for a REIT to pay a monetary penalty and bring itself into compliance in order to avoid such a result if the REIT can demonstrate reasonable cause for such failure. Commercial real estate represents more than six percent of this country's gross domestic product and is a key generator of jobs and other economic activities. For example, REITs have invested over $1.2 billion in my home State of Utah and have thus been a major contributor to our robust economy. Over the past 46 years, Real Estate Investment Trusts have fulfilled Congress' vision by making investments in large scale, capital intensive commercial real estate available to all investors. Changes to the REIT rules that Congress has made in the past decade have allowed REITs to serve better their tenants while maximizing returns to REIT shareholders. The bill I introduce today would further modify the REIT tax rules to conform to constantly evolving business realities, such as the growing importance of cross-border trade and the increased velocity of the competitive marketplace, while still focusing REITs on commercial real estate activities. Specifically, the bill includes five titles. The first would clarify the tax treatment of foreign currency gains attributable to overseas real estate investment. This is important as U.S. REITs continue to expand their investments overseas. The second title would increase the permissible ownership of a REIT in a taxable REIT subsidiary to 25 percent from the current-law 20 percent. This change would bring the REIT rules into conformity with similar rules governing mutual funds. Title III of the bill would update the safe harbor test for purposes of the 100 percent excise tax in relation to dealer sales. This would help REITs more prudently manage the timing and extent of their asset dispositions. The bill's fourth title would conform the tax treatment of health care facilities to that of lodging facilities by treating as qualifying income rental payments attributable to a health care facility made to a REIT from a taxable REIT subsidiary. This change would allow health care REITs more flexibility. Finally, the bill's fifth title would amend the REIT rules to provide that income from, and interests in, foreign-qualified REITs would be treated as qualifying REIT income and assets under the U.S. REIT rules under certain circumstances. This change is important because about 20 countries have now enacted legislation that closely resembles our REIT rules, and many U.S. REITs may wish to invest in a non-U.S. REIT. This would allow them to do so with a minimum of complexity. I urge my colleagues to review this bill and lend their support to it. I realize that it is very late in the second session of the 109th Congress, and there is little time for us to consider newly-introduced tax bills. However, I hope to reintroduce this legislation in the next Congress if we do not get a chance to consider it this year. I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section analysis of the REIT Investment Diversification and Empowerment Act and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the REIT Investment Diversification and Empowerment Act of 2006 (RIDEA). This legislation would make a handful of relatively minor, but nonetheless important, changes to the tax rules governing Real Estate Investment Trusts to permit REITs to better meet the challenges of evolving market conditions and opportunities. As most of my colleagues know, Real Estate Investment Trusts are companies that own, and in most cases, operate income-producing real estate. Congress created REITs in 1960 to give everyone the ability to invest in large-scale commercial properties in a very liquid way. The REIT industry has grown dramatically in size and importance to the U.S. economy since then, and in the last ten years in particular. While the tax laws governing REITs are very good, from time to time they need to be modified to keep pace with the changes in the marketplace and in our economy. I am pleased to have supported, along with many of my colleagues, several tax bills that have been enacted in the past decade or so to modernize the tax treatment of Real Estate Investment Trusts. Federal tax law requires that REITs meet specific tests regarding the composition of their gross income and assets. For example, 95 percent of their annual gross income must be from specified sources such as dividends, interests and rents, and 75 percent of their gross income must be from real estate-related sources. Similarly, at the end of each calendar quarter, 75 percent of a REIT's assets must consist of specified ``real estate'' assets. Consequently, REITs must derive a majority of their gross income from commercial real estate. Failure to meet these tests can result in loss of REIT status, although with the enactment of the REIT Improvement Act in 2004, it may be possible for a REIT to pay a monetary penalty and bring itself into compliance in order to avoid such a result if the REIT can demonstrate reasonable cause for such failure. Commercial real estate represents more than six percent of this country's gross domestic product and is a key generator of jobs and other economic activities. For example, REITs have invested over $1.2 billion in my home State of Utah and have thus been a major contributor to our robust economy. Over the past 46 years, Real Estate Investment Trusts have fulfilled Congress' vision by making investments in large scale, capital intensive commercial real estate available to all investors. Changes to the REIT rules that Congress has made in the past decade have allowed REITs to serve better their tenants while maximizing returns to REIT shareholders. The bill I introduce today would further modify the REIT tax rules to conform to constantly evolving business realities, such as the growing importance of cross-border trade and the increased velocity of the competitive marketplace, while still focusing REITs on commercial real estate activities. Specifically, the bill includes five titles. The first would clarify the tax treatment of foreign currency gains attributable to overseas real estate investment. This is important as U.S. REITs continue to expand their investments overseas. The second title would increase the permissible ownership of a REIT in a taxable REIT subsidiary to 25 percent from the current-law 20 percent. This change would bring the REIT rules into conformity with similar rules governing mutual funds. Title III of the bill would update the safe harbor test for purposes of the 100 percent excise tax in relation to dealer sales. This would help REITs more prudently manage the timing and extent of their asset dispositions. The bill's fourth title would conform the tax treatment of health care facilities to that of lodging facilities by treating as qualifying income rental payments attributable to a health care facility made to a REIT from a taxable REIT subsidiary. This change would allow health care REITs more flexibility. Finally, the bill's fifth title would amend the REIT rules to provide that income from, and interests in, foreign-qualified REITs would be treated as qualifying REIT income and assets under the U.S. REIT rules under certain circumstances. This change is important because about 20 countries have now enacted legislation that closely resembles our REIT rules, and many U.S. REITs may wish to invest in a non-U.S. REIT. This would allow them to do so with a minimum of complexity. I urge my colleagues to review this bill and lend their support to it. I realize that it is very late in the second session of the 109th Congress, and there is little time for us to consider newly-introduced tax bills. However, I hope to reintroduce this legislation in the next Congress if we do not get a chance to consider it this year. I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section analysis of the REIT Investment Diversification and Empowerment Act and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to submit a resolution that would designate Thursday, November 16, 2006, as ``Feed America Day.'' The United States today is marked by an economic prosperity unparalleled in the world. Every year we gather together as family and friends in a great Thanksgiving feast to celebrate the goodness of God and the bounty that He has provided us. Unfortunately, not all in this world participate in this bounty. There are thousands among us who suffer from hunger and want, including far too many children. Hunger was something our forefathers who instituted the first Thanksgiving feast understood all too well. Nearly half of the small band of Pilgrims who first arrived upon the bleak shores of Plymouth on December 11, 1620, perished from hunger and sickness that first winter. It was only through the generosity and goodwill of friendly native inhabitants that the Pilgrims were able to become self-sufficient and enjoy a bountiful harvest the following year. It is with a sincere desire that others may partake of our plenty, that I offer this resolution designating Thursday, November 15, 2006, as ``Feed America Day''. That day, before we sit down to our own feasts of thanksgiving, I ask that all Americans share their food with their neighbors just as the Pilgrims and the Indians shared with one another, and all were able to sit down and rejoice together. The concept of Feed America Day is very simple. On the Thursday before Thanksgiving, I urge every American who is able to fast for two meals and give the money saved to a church or charitable organization engaged in feeding the hungry. Fasting means to go without food for a higher purpose. What higher purpose could there be than to share our blessings with those in need? As we feel the hunger for a brief time that so many in the world experience every day, we become more sensitive to the needs of others. And this strengthened generosity of spirit will reverberate throughout our Nation and the world. Sarah Josepha Hale, recognized as the Mother of the American Thanksgiving, engaged in a nearly 40-year campaign to have Thanksgiving accepted as a national holiday. She summed up her vision for this holiday in one of her many editorials on the subject published in the women's magazine she headed for many years. She wrote, ``Let us consecrate the day to benevolence of action, by sending good gifts to the poor, and doing those deeds of charity that will, for one day, make every American home the place of plenty and of rejoicing. . . . Let the people of all the States and Territories sit down together to the `feast of fat things,' and drink in the sweet draught of joy and gratitude to the Divine giver of all our blessings, . . .'' This is the purpose of Feed America Day. Through this program of fasting and charity, we as a nation can truly embody the spirit of Thanksgiving that was amply demonstrated for us between the first European settlers to this land and its native inhabitants in 1621, and later urged by Mrs. Hale. I urge my colleagues to support ``Feed America Day''. It is my belief that participating in such selfless sacrifice will breed a genuine spirit of Thanksgiving, affirming and restoring the fundamental principles that form the foundation of the United States of America.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to support the effort to call up and immediately adopt S. 2823, the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Modernization Act. Adoption of this legislation offers us the opportunity to make a difference in the lives of the hundreds of thousands of people in the United States who are living with HIV/AIDS. We should not let this opportunity pass. I am pleased to have joined HELP Committee Chairman Enzi and Ranking Minority Member Kennedy, Majority Leader Frist, and Senators DeWine and Burr in introducing this reauthorization bill. As my colleagues are aware, I was the author of the original legislation along with Senator Kennedy and we introduced the first bill on this issue in the 101st Congress. The Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency Act of 1990 was signed into public law on August 18, 1990 and became--excluding Medicaid and Medicare--the United States' largest Federally funded program for the care of those living with HIV and AIDS. It was a lot of hard work. But it was a lot of hard work for a very important cause. Let us take a moment to remember one of the reasons why we did all that hard work in the first place. His name was Ryan White. Ryan was born in Kokomo, IN, in 1971. Three days after his birth, he was diagnosed with severe hemophilia. Fortunately for Ryan and his parents, there was a new blood-based product just approved by the Food and Drug Administration called Factor VIII, which contains the clotting agent found in blood. While he was growing up, Ryan had many bleeds or hemorrhages in his joints which were very painful. A bleed occurs from a broken blood vessel or vein. Think of a water balloon. When the blood has nowhere to go, it swells up in a joint and creates painful pressure. Twice a week, Ryan would receive injections or IVs of Factor VIII, which clotted the blood and then broke it down. In December of 1984, Ryan was battling severe pneumonia and had to have surgery to have 2 inches of his left lung removed. Two hours after the surgery, doctors told his mother that he had contracted AIDS as a result of his biweekly treatment with Factor VIII. He was given 6 months to live. Ryan White was a fighter. He was determined to continue at his school and live life normally. But in 1985, not many people knew the truth about AIDS. Not very much was known about AIDS at all. Most of the so- called facts that people claimed to know were speculation. So Ryan faced a lot of discrimination, mostly based on the unknown. Ryan was soon expelled from his high school because of the supposed health risk to other students. His situation became one of the most controversial cases in North America, with AIDS activists lobbying to have him reinstated while attempting to explain to the public that AIDS cannot be transmitted by casual contact. After legal battles, Ryan and his mother settled with the school to have separate restrooms and use disposable silverware from the cafeteria. He agreed to drink from separate water fountains and no longer used the high school gymnasium. But those concessions didn't stop much. Students vandalized his locker. Some restaurants threw his dishes away after he left. A bullet was even fired into his home. Later, Ryan transferred to a different school where he was well- received by faculty and students who were fully educated into the nature of HIV. Ryan was a great student with an exceptional work ethic and perseverance. He was respected by his fellow students because of his admirable traits. They understood he was a human being--just like them, but living with a terrible disease. Before he died on April 8, 1990, Ryan White worked to educate people on the nature of HIV and AIDS, to show that it was not a lifestyle disease and that, with a few precautions, it was safe to associate with people who were HIV-positive. His character sought to overcome stigma. He became an inspiration to patients and advocates throughout the United States and the rest of the world. By the spring of 1990, over 128,000 people had been diagnosed with AIDS in the United States and 78,000 had died of the disease. The Ryan White CARE Act was originally enacted in 1990 in response to the need for HIV primary care and support services. At that time, the focus of public policy was on research, public education, surveillance, and prevention. The CARE Act was the first approach developed to help people with HIV and AIDS to obtain primary care and support services to save and improve their lives. There is no doubt that the CARE Act has played a critical role in the Nation's response to the AIDS epidemic. The CARE Act was reauthorized in 1996 and 2000 to address the fact that the epidemic continued to spread and that primary care and support services provided through the act were still vitally important to people living with HIV and AIDS. Today, more than 944,000 cases of AIDS have been reported to the Centers for Disease Control and prevention, the CDC. Nearly 530,000 men, women, and children have died as the epidemic has spread over the last 25 years to both new populations and new geographic areas. The public health burden and the economic burden of the AIDS epidemic have not been reduced since the CARE Act was passed. The continued need for services grows faster than the resources available. Steady expansion and shifted demographics of the epidemic and the increasing survival rates for people living with AIDS have increased the stress on local health care systems in some areas. This strain is felt both in urban centers, where the epidemic continues to rage, and in smaller cities and rural areas, where the epidemic is expanding rapidly. This reauthorization bill addresses those inequities and reevaluates funding formulas so that money for the program follows the epidemic. It keeps money for the AIDS Drug Assistance Program--known as ADAP--within ADAP, and even grants States flexibility to transfer funds to ADAP when they have demonstrated need. Currently, funds for the ADAP supplemental pool are frequently dipped into for other purposes, resulting in inadequate funding and waiting lists. It also protects States and eligible metropolitan areas from suffering catastrophic losses in funding. I know that it is never easy to revise a bill that contains funding formulas. No matter what changes we make, they will always raise issues and questions. But let us move beyond the narrow fight and work for the greater good. We have been talking a lot about numbers and codes and case counts and reporting data, but we need to remember that there are actual real people being affected by this, real people who need our help. Hundreds of thousands of people continue to live affected with and die from this disease, and we need to bring out all the tools within the Federal arsenal to help fight for them. As of December 31, 2005, the Utah Department of Health reported a total of 1,907 people living with HIV and AIDS in the State of Utah. Many of these individuals rely on Title II funding from the Ryan White Program to receive health care, vital medications and support services. These individuals are also counting on me to fight for their continued access to care and services that have such a big impact on their survival and quality of life. We in Congress are being counted on to work together on behalf of the nearly 1 million people living with HIV/AIDS in our country. The last reauthorization period for the Ryan White Program expired in 2005. It is incredibly important that we reauthorize the program again now in order to continue providing the care that is so critical to these populations and alleviate strain from shifts in the epidemic felt by health care providers. There are real people counting on us. We need to move forward in reauthorizing the only Federal program that helps the neediest of people living with this devastating disease. This bill extends the availability of vital services, and it includes changes that intend to fix discrepancies that have resulted in Ryan White funds not following the epidemic. This is a good bill and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized as soon as the distinguished Senator from Louisiana has finished.